god's current representative on earth shows most common sense of any of his predecessors by getting "halfway there" to the rest of decent human beings.
EDIT: i'm actually curious. do the theists here believe that using artificial contraception is a sin or is this one of the official rules that they ignore? do you only have sexual relations in order to procreate? sex for fun is obviously a sin. also, did you all save yourselves for marriage? just wondering as from my experience, these are the rules usually broken.
god's current representative on earth shows most common sense of any of his predecessors by getting "halfway there" to the rest of decent human beings.
EDIT: i'm actually curious. do the theists here believe that using artificial contraception is a sin or is this one of the official rules that they ignore? do you only have sexual relations in order to procreate? sex for fun is obviously a sin. also, did you all save yourselves for marriage? just wondering as from my experience, these are the rules usually broken.
I am not a Roman Catholic, so I don't claim to speak for them, nor the Pope.
No, I don't think contraception is a sin; I haven't looked into why Catholics do believe it so, I've never seen the reason in my reading of scripture -I suppose it's all about interpretation of a command to "be fruitful and multiply".
My wife and I multiplied ourselves x1 (we have two kids).
Sex for fun (with one's spouse) is certainly - CERTAINLY -not a sin; again not something I have found in scripture.
For more on this see the book "Intended For Pleasure" ( I don't know the author, it's been recommended to me but I have not read it), or the book "Sex God" by Rob Bell (which I have read).
It's somewhat odd to share this on a public forum (lucky no one reads it), but yes both my wife and I did wait until marriage before we had the sex.
If god had anything to do with man - don't you think the known universe would have worked out differently earth has been around for 4 billion years humans don't appear until 99.5 % through the story god and religion isn't invented until that story too is 999.9% through. about 2000-10000 years ago. so god perceived us in perfect form even though we didn't exist and would not exists for millions more years and he figured we wouldn;t start his story until we reach this specific form, which again is just a part in our evolution. that's sort of like inventing the light bulb a million years before electricity
A term I despise is "supernatural". There is no such thing, just shit we haven't figured out yet. I can picture a day - not one that I'll see in my lifetime - where people have figured a lot of this stuff out, and ashamedly giggle at our religions like we laugh at people who thought the earth was flat. I actually agree with you on this one, Mark . . . except about giggling at Religion. Ever considered that maybe, just maybe, that will be the day when we actually know enough to have an intelligent "conversation" with God?
I'm probably a chrisitan or catholic, who knows who cares. But I have to say I don't agree with one thing they say. Let's face it 500 years ago our ancestors were burning people alive. We are not the authority who should be telling people what's right and wrong because clearly we've been 100% wrong so far. We just don't talk about until a few generations later so those who believed the charade all their life can at least die in peace.
Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
Thought I'd hearken back to that OP almost three years ago now. A so-called "case for atheism" need not be made since a properly defined atheist is not owning a belief but having a lack of belief. It does appear that some so-called atheists behave differently than this but by definition I think that is a fair response to the OP.
However, I like that religious discussion is not banned or anything and that people seem to be able to discuss this pretty humanely on this forum, so I'll throw in a brief two cents of mine.
I believe God exists simply because I look at the universe and cannot picture all of this coming into being without some sort of Being guiding it into existence. I look at something as simple as the sky or my pet dog and it becomes clear in my mind: "This could not have just happened."
Perhaps not the most clearly defined, intellectual thing but this was and still is perhaps the most powerful reason why I can't erase belief in God.
Thought I'd hearken back to that OP almost three years ago now. A so-called "case for atheism" need not be made since a properly defined atheist is not owning a belief but having a lack of belief. It does appear that some so-called atheists behave differently than this but by definition I think that is a fair response to the OP.
However, I like that religious discussion is not banned or anything and that people seem to be able to discuss this pretty humanely on this forum, so I'll throw in a brief two cents of mine.
I believe God exists simply because I look at the universe and cannot picture all of this coming into being without some sort of Being guiding it into existence.
You should emmerse yourself in some advanced physics courses.
I look at something as simple as the sky or my pet dog and it becomes clear in my mind: "This could not have just happened."
... and yet it did.
Perhaps not the most clearly defined, intellectual thing but this was and still is perhaps the most powerful reason why I can't erase belief in God.
You can trace your dog and you back to the same organism and when you do you see that you no longer need God. Some time ago man was a slimy slithering creature that came out of the water and became a mamal. We still share some of our genes with this creature but have mutated and divided a bazillion times since then and so has every living things on this planet. The best case that I can make for believing is that God started the first particle that started the big bang. Everything else we can explain because its all just cell division and mutation. Nobody can dispute these things because they happen every single day. But god perceiving a DNA based life before the planets were even formed and apparently god is not DNA based himself, now that is the one I want god's follower to explain.
This is what the OP was referring to. If you are indeed able to say with perfect certainty that the universe and all that is in it came into being and does not require any sort of omnipotent Being then there is an obligation on your part to make a case for that belief. I think I agree with the OP that this is not really possible and would probably require more faith than most atheists think religious people have.
Ultimately without a foundation such as God most of our reality is reduced to absurdity. But that's an argument I'd rather not get into at this point.
Ultimately without a foundation such as God most of our reality is reduced to absurdity.
Well there is your proof right there that there is no God. We already live in a world of absurdity. God's wonderful creation (Lol) Man,, isn't exactly perfect. We lie cheat steal murder rape kill capture exploit not just our race and but other creatures as well. What could be more absurd than that besides doing those things on a mass scale, oh wait that would have been man a few hundreds years ago. Let's just leave it at that because you're not scoring points for the chose ones.
This is what the OP was referring to. If you are indeed able to say with perfect certainty that the universe and all that is in it came into being and does not require any sort of omnipotent Being then there is an obligation on your part to make a case for that belief. I think I agree with the OP that this is not really possible and would probably require more faith than most atheists think religious people have.
Ultimately without a foundation such as God most of our reality is reduced to absurdity. But that's an argument I'd rather not get into at this point.
When the adherents to magic man in the sky start telling others what they can / can't do (abortion, birth control, subjugate people, delay medical advances, etc. etc.) because "he" says so? I think the onus is on you and yours to show me why I fucking can't.
like i've mentioned in this thread previously, i think the best argument is that "something can't come from nothing" and there has to be some kind of "first mover" to the universe. however, there is absolutely nothing that suggests this has to be a supernatural being with intelligence. if we've learned anything from physics it's that any organization in the world is just how we humans have decided to categorize things.
Chances are if you don't already believe in God or at least have on open-mind toward God and/or religion there isn't much that can be said to convince you. However, we can have a meaningful conversation about it. But if it's going to turn into hostility I'm not really too interested.
I used to be very religious so I maintain some of that that as I move forward in life. I will say that I don't think believing in God is stupid at all. However, in fact, if you can give me some compelling reasons why God and religion is obviously untrue there's a small chance you're doing me a huge favour; as believing in a religiously-bent God has a lot of downsides for me at the moment.
Regardless of what you believe, saying it with respect is appreciated if possible. Some of the hatred some "non-believers" have for religion ironically mirrors some of the hatred they hate seeing exhibited by religious people. If you'd like me to respect your freedom to do whatever you like even if it's contrary to a particular religion, it would be nice if you respected my freedom in believing by not insulting it.
Chances are if you don't already believe in God or at least have on open-mind toward God and/or religion there isn't much that can be said to convince you. However, we can have a meaningful conversation about it. But if it's going to turn into hostility I'm not really too interested.
I used to be very religious so I maintain some of that that as I move forward in life. I will say that I don't think believing in God is stupid at all. However, in fact, if you can give me some compelling reasons why God and religion is obviously untrue there's a small chance you're doing me a huge favour; as believing in a religiously-bent God has a lot of downsides for me at the moment.
Regardless of what you believe, saying it with respect is appreciated if possible. Some of the hatred some "non-believers" have for religion ironically mirrors some of the hatred they hate seeing exhibited by religious people. If you'd like me to respect your freedom to do whatever you like even if it's contrary to a particular religion, it would be nice if you respected my freedom in believing by not insulting it.
I already have provided reasons to not believe in God ITT. I actually broke it down into 4 parts iirc. I'm too lazy to find them for you though so feel free to read the thread if you want. I'm not going to repeat it all.
Chances are if you don't already believe in God or at least have on open-mind toward God and/or religion there isn't much that can be said to convince you. However, we can have a meaningful conversation about it. But if it's going to turn into hostility I'm not really too interested.
I used to be very religious so I maintain some of that that as I move forward in life. I will say that I don't think believing in God is stupid at all. However, in fact, if you can give me some compelling reasons why God and religion is obviously untrue there's a small chance you're doing me a huge favour; as believing in a religiously-bent God has a lot of downsides for me at the moment.
Regardless of what you believe, saying it with respect is appreciated if possible. Some of the hatred some "non-believers" have for religion ironically mirrors some of the hatred they hate seeing exhibited by religious people. If you'd like me to respect your freedom to do whatever you like even if it's contrary to a particular religion, it would be nice if you respected my freedom in believing by not insulting it.
Let's put it this way...
The quality of reasons that people believe in got are no better than the quality of reasoning behind not, so therefore, they are choosing to believe in a god not because of any sort of logical or rational edge, but rather from fear, or conditioning from their upbringing - which in my mind is ironically another reason to not believe in god.
The quality of reasons that people believe in got are no better than the quality of reasoning behind not, so therefore, they are choosing to believe in a god not because of any sort of logical or rational edge, but rather from fear, or conditioning from their upbringing - which in my mind is ironically another reason to not believe in god.
Mark
As you well know I'm a "fence sitter", waiting for some convincing argument either way, but you really must have had some negative experience earlier in life re religion as you do come across as somewhat bitter towards it or towards those who do believe. Am I right in that thought.
Never had any sorta theological trauma (despite having been an Altar Boy). Grew up Roman Catholic. I just am the kinda guy that questions everything, and when I started looking at the "why" behind the "what" I was being taught, it became fairly clear to me that it's a creation to control the uneducated masses. Fear and shame keeping the under privileged in line.
As for bitterness? Absolutely, but not necessarily towards religion so much as the wilful ignorance, laziness inherent in adherence, and the camouflage it provides for people to feel okay about their own prejudices and profound lack of empathy. It's consistent when you look at how venomous I get at attitudes that are dismissive towards other people's struggles and circumstances, just because you and yours had the good fortune NOT to have that particular hurdle. Abortion clinics closed? Silly girl, just don't get pregnant! Women's rights? Oh come ON women, we've given you like.. nearly 3/4 as much as we have, like, how much more do you want? Equal treatments for LGBTQ? But, their preferred genital combination makes ME slightly uncomfortable!
In terms of religion itself, the biggest issue I have in itself is the fact that it does allow its followers to avoid what I feel is the most crucial aspect of personal betterment. Introspection. I don't have to take a good long hard look at myself, as long as I do what Jesus wants (thank goodness he's a white guy, and the pope has the authority to change the rules that won't make a big deal to my particular demographic, since, you know, he's in it).
where do we think religion and the concept of god came from? before there were humans, it's not like the animals were talking about it. it wasn't until humans began developing (for lack of a better term) 'stronger' brains that the concept of religion was created. this original concept was based on a notion of mystery. things that these early humans could not explain (for example, scientifically) they would label with terms of the unknown. so for example, if there was an earthquake, we didn't know that it was tectonic plates shifting under the ground as they float around on giant pools of burning hot lava. the only way we could explain mysterious phenomena was equating to something we also just couldn't explain and couldn't understand. i.e. god made the earth shake.
now where did this notion of god come from you may ask? from above, you could argue it came out of necessity alone. that is we had to calm people down and we can't just keep saying 'we have no idea what is happening ever' so instead we'll just say god's doing it and then we can try to explain why god is doing it - simply put, trying to explain god's providence is more enjoyable and much easier a concept for humans to argue over as compared to why did the earth or the universe do it because no one in their right mind would argue that the universe chose to do something as universes don't make choices. but a god with possible human qualities, surely he makes choices. so again, it was born out of a necessity to explain, with a complete lack of knowledge and understanding, those things we couldn't explain.
furthermore, our human brains allowed us to remember past events better than other animals, and they allowed us to consider future implications. these two enhancements also helped us create the concept of god. early humans had the capacity to look back on past generations and remember what they did and taught. using this information, we could then look to the future and try to make decisions that were helpful in our survival. survival of our species back then demanded much from us as a group and the only way we could survive was to build on our past generations and use the specific knowledge that they had suffered and realized through their own tribulations. as a result, we as humans began to praise our ancestors. they laid the way for our being and our survival and if it wasn't for their pain and struggle, we wouldn't be here. as a result from this, humans began worshiping their previous ancestors and in a sense we began to see them as gods. we would pray to the old leaders, the old wise men, etc. to bring us rain to grow our food for example, or to keep us safe from predators and so on. this was the very beginning of the idea of religions and gods - a means for us to explain what we couldn't, and a creation of hope to come.
stay tuned for the case for atheism part 2: with big numbers comes big responsibility.
I apologize for the length of this post and the tardiness i showed to write it. To be honest, it was more difficult for me to write up compared to part 1 since I had studied all the evidence in part 1 previously. Enjoy!
Part 2: With Big Numbers Comes Big Responsibility
When we as humans talk about the universe, we tend to gloss over certain facts that, with all due respect, our brains truly can't fathom. When some of the actual numbers are considered with as much effort as we can muster, the significance of our existence certainly becomes feeble. Furthermore, the chance of organic life coming into being somewhere in the universe seems fairly likely. Here are a few numbers that we must keep in mind when considering the chance of our existence with respect to the universe as a whole:
First of all, we must consider the fact that we are limited in the capacity of what we can see of our universe. The "observable universe" consists of all the light that has traveled from the objects in space and that has reached Earth so that we have been able to observe it. The best estimate of the diameter of the observable universe is 28 billion parsecs or 93 billion light years (93,000,000,000!) - which means that the edge of the observable universe is about 46 billion light years* away.
*A quick explanation of light years is necessary I think in order for us to truly attempt to comprehend the enormity we're discussing here. The alleged fastest possible speed anything in the universe can travel is light speed. Light speed is considered to be exactly 299,792,458 metres per second. If we were able to travel that fast, it would still take us about 46 billion years to reach the end of the known universe (just imagine what we might observe if we could see beyond!). To put this in some perspective, the fastest humans have been able to travel (not including the Earth's rotation, etc.) was 39,897 km/h during the Apollo 10 mission (btw, just to compare in the same measurement, light speed is 1,079,252,848.8 km/h). Wow, the known universe is big - and there's still more out there we can't see yet!
Another significant number to consider is the amount of stars in the universe. Currently we cannot know for certain how many stars there are, but best guesses put the range somewhere between 10^22 to 10^24 (that is at least 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars!). It is reasonably assumed that there are over 100 billion galaxies in the universe and there are roughly 100 billion stars per galaxy. It is a fact that every single star has a circumstellar habitable zone (aka Goldilocks zone) in which orbiting planets can support liquid water. What this means is that any planets orbiting stars within this zone have the potential to produce organic life.
Furthermore, consider that the universe is considered to be approximately 13.77 billion years old. In comparison, homo sapiens are considered to be only 200,000 years old. To put this in perspective, modern humans have only existed in the universe for around 0.00001452% of the total time the universe has existed.
One more number I'd like to include is the chance of being dealt a royal flush: it is 4 out of 2,598,960 which is 0.00015% (that is, being dealt 5 cards only and getting a royal flush with no additional draws). I know players who have been playing for years and have never gotten a royal flush.
Now, you are probably asking why are all these numbers significant in reference to the argument of atheism? Let's consider it from this point of view. Does it make more sense that God created all of this entire universe just so we humans could grow and develop on one single, tiny planet while the rest of the universe sat dormant of organic life, or that organic life as we know it was created simply from random chance since there are so many, SO MANY, opportunities for it to arise?
If the chance of organic life beginning around a random star in the universe was the same chance as getting dealt a royal flush, then there would potentially be approximately 15,000,000,000,000,000,000 amount of stars being orbited by a planet with organic life somewhere in the universe! (Yes,I know this math is not exact because not every star has planets orbiting it and some have more than one, but despite that the example serves the purpose.) That is a lot, but even if the chance was way WAY less than that, it's easy to see that there is still very good odds that somewhere in the universe organic life could spring up just from the sheer number of chances for it to do so. Not to mention, humans have been around for an extremely miniscule amount of time in the universe. It's definitely possible that entire civilizations and species on other planets have come and gone millions or even billions of years before we were even able to begin observing!
(A couple side notes to consider that I won't get into detail about, but are very significant in this argument, are the assumptions that there is only one universe (as opposed to the theory of the 'multiverse') and that there has only ever been one Big Bang. Some theorize multiple big bangs throughout history while others suggest multiple big bangs happening simultaneously all the time in various universes!)
Moreover, if any other planet in the entire universe were to have organic life, especially any form of intelligent or even semi-intelligent life, God and religion would fail and crumble. Nowhere has any major religion, nor major God for that matter, discussed any possibility of life outside of our planet. Practically all religions deem us, humans, as the bee's knees - the main result of creation. They all argue that we are the pinnacle of the existence of life in the universe. Any proof of life forms from another planet would bring almost all religious doctrines crashing down.
The numbers don't lie, but humans tend to most of the time.
Stay tuned (eventually) for Part 3: Intelligent Design or Stupid Human Minds?
The Intelligent Design theory (as it is known nowadays) stems from the teleological argument for the existence of God. This argument is as follows:
1. All natural bodies in the world act towards ends.
2. These objects are in themselves unintelligent.
3. Acting towards an end is a characteristic of intelligence.
4. Therefore, there exists an intelligent being that guides all natural bodies towards their ends.
5. This being is what we call God.
Basically, this argument is suggesting that since there is some form of intelligent design in the world, there must be some kind of intelligent designer who created it. This argument is based on empirical evidence of human-like design as seen in nature. One common example is the creation of the eye organ and its complex design.
First of all, we must consider how theists establish this argument - they take empirical evidence from the world around them. Now, how do they make the distinction of ‘something that is designed’? They use nature as the basis of comparison and they distinguish between designed objects or artefacts and natural objects. Now herein is where we see the problem with the basic logic of the intelligent design theory: it supposes the presence of design only in that it differs from natural characteristics, and in doing so, it destroys the basis that is used to distinguish between designed artefacts and natural objects (credited to George H. Smith). Basically, it uses its conclusion as one of its premises and that’s a big no-no in logic.
Another problem from an empirical perspective is that theists are greatly assuming that this notion of design does in fact exist in nature. Again, the notion of ‘something that is designed’ comes from human understanding of witnessing the creation of man-made objects. Arguably, since we cannot see the creation of the universe, it is problematic for theists to suggest that it was a result of design. Hence, the two can’t be compared in the same way. Furthermore, humans have access to an extremely minute experience of the universe, and, therefore, it is possible that even though what we’ve experienced seems like there is an order, there could definitely be chaos in other parts of the universe (or even an underlying chaos as can be seen in quantum physics). (credited to David Hume)
Finally, even if we were to admit to the theist that there is intelligent design in the universe, it doesn’t necessarily follow that there must be an intelligent designer who created the universe. For example, it’s entirely possible that order in nature is due to nature alone. That is, there is a principle of order that is necessarily a part of nature and nature itself could not exist without this form of order. And even if we just assumed that there was a designer of the universe, the theory does not support an omniscient, omnipotent being in any way. The designer could easily have been flawed or defective. Also, there is no certainty that only one designer was needed. The theory does not eliminate the possibility of multiple deities or designers.
So, I’ll ask you again: does intelligent design lead to the existence of God or does it just merely suggest how our human brains function in order to establish understanding by attempting (and failing) to extrapolate our human experiences onto an alleged infinite being? I’ll let your stupid human brain decide.
I may do a part 4 about the problem of evil as well.
Part 4: If God Exists Then Innocent Babies Must Die! (and God doesn’t care)
In order to discuss the problem of evil, certain stipulations must be agreed upon. First of all, this argument focuses on the idea of an omniscient (all knowing), omnipotent (all powerful), omni-benevolent (all good) God who is able to influence the world (for example through miracles). If your definition of God differs from this, then there is most likely no issue with the problem of evil. It is important to note that if any of these characteristics are removed, then this “ultimate being” is no longer considered "God".
The problem of evil argues that this notion of God is incompatible with the existence of evil in the world. Since we generally agree that there is evil in the world, it follows that God (as described above) cannot also exist (if anyone would like to argue there is no evil in the world, I’d love to hear it!). With these stipulations settled, we can move on.
The original problem of evil came from Epicurus and can be basically summed up in the following:
God is omnipotent.
God is omni-benevolent.
Evil exists in the world.
Only two out of the three statements above can be compatible with each other at any one time.
For example, if evil exists in the world and God is omnipotent (i.e. he has the power to rid the world of evil), then God must not be omni-benevolent since he is allowing this evil to exist. Another example is if evil exists in the world and God is omni-benevolent (i.e. he is infinitely good), then God must not be omnipotent as he must be unable to rid the world of evil. In both cases, the theist would have to disagree as God must be both infinitely powerful and infinitely good. So then why do innocent, baby kittens ever die?
To combat this argument, the theist would suggest that the only reason evil exists in the world is due to us humans. Through our freedom of will, we create evil as we have the choice to either do good or do evil. Moreover, this is necessarily so as without this freedom of choice there would be no such thing as moral good since there would be no proper choice between good and evil. Basically, God is testing us and giving us the options and most of us just keep choosing evil, and therefore we bring the evil into this world, not God.
The major flaw in this reasoning is that God is also omniscient. That is, God knows all, past and future. Therefore, before God even created humans, he knew he’d supply them with free will. He also knew that he would give humans the choice between good and evil. Therefore, he knew that many (if not most) people would choose to be evil. As a result, he consciously unleashed evil into this world as he gave us the ability to choose, he supplied us with the only possible choices, and he knew ahead of time that most of us would choose evil over good, yet he still followed through with his plan. Hence, God is in fact responsible for bringing evil into the world (which negates his omni-benevolence and therefore negates his existence).
Now even if theists are able to argue around this point, there are still further issues with respect to the problem of evil as the above only relates to human choice. However, there are other evils in the world that occur that are arguably not a result of human choice. The common example that is referenced is the Lisbon earthquake in which the entire town of Lisbon was suddenly and utterly destroyed. Up to 100,000 people were killed. Now why would God allow this evil to occur outside of any human’s freedom of choice? How is a natural disaster that kills thousands and thousands of people a necessary evil?
The common philosophical example comes from William Rowe and is referred to as “Rowe’s Fawn”. Pretend there is a cute, innocent, little fawn walking through the forest. Suddenly, a tree next to the fawn falls over crushing the fawn’s leg and breaking it. The fawn cannot get up or move and just lies there for days and days in agony until it eventually starves to death. Obviously, it is practically impossible to argue that this was caused by free will of humans creating evil. Furthermore, how does the suffering of this poor fawn lead to any greater good (another of the theist’s arguments for the existence of evil)? In fact, what benefit of any kind could come from this evil?
In summary, the existence of evil in the world runs in complete contrast to the existence of God. The only way God can exist alongside evil is if he is malevolent or he is limited in his power, and since God cannot be either of those things, and evil does in fact exist in the world, we can conclude that there is no God.
I used to be very religious so I maintain some of that that as I move forward in life. I will say that I don't think believing in God is stupid at all. However, in fact, if you can give me some compelling reasons why God and religion is obviously untrue there's a small chance you're doing me a huge favour; as believing in a religiously-bent God has a lot of downsides for me at the moment.
Nobody has been rude or hostile -- you are taking it the wrong way because the god charade is a fraud and as you find out bits and bits through science you began to get upset more. Don't worry this is on track with all believers.
I just have to drop to my knees in laughter when you " give me compelling reasons ". Duh where do you want to start.
Not even one thing from the god side has been true.. not one.. Can't you see that every generation has a new lie, and lies of the previous generation are slowly erased but nobody questions them. Man uses God because its the easiest and most simple and free tool to generate power, believers, money, govts etc.. You then use those follower for wars or profit making depending on your current state of power.
Adam and Eve -- LOL If we all came from A&E how do you explain black people ?
Spread the oceans -- LOL
Burn them witches -- LOL
Earth is the center of the universe --- LOL
The serpent -- LOL
The virgin -- LOL
Muslimania -- LOL
The ever changing views of the church -- LOL
4239 Different Gods -- LOL
Half a dozen sons of God all from different races -- God sounds worst than a ghetto mom -- LOL
You have a 100% ratio of fails and lies. How much do you need ?
It seems really hard to find a "non believer" who can talk about God without getting mad. Just because I was explaining why I personally believe in God, I don't think it gives you the right to lump me in with all of the bad things about religion and every religious person you've ever encountered that you disliked.
If if you met me in real life not knowing my views on religion I'm sure we'd get along just fine, why can't we act that way in this discussion? Nothing to get upset about, I believe in God. I don't murder people or push my belief's on anyone, as I said, treat me as an individual and respect my views and try to explain nicely why you disagree. As far as I can see, I don't see that in a lot of these posts.
That's all I'm trying to say. If there is no rudeness or hostility what other way am I supposed to take the derogatory remarks like the ones I quoted above?
Of course you can talk however you like, but in this format a discussion is not likely to go anywhere. If there's no respect and you honestly believe believing in God is insanely stupid what is there to achieve by talking about it?
I don't know if anyone can have a rational conversation about god and religion because there is nothing rational about either.
I'm happy to branch on a topic but why bother. They never go anywhere because in the end all believers point to gods magic when they can't explain the topics I mentioned above.
We couldn't get to the root of your dog before you invoked the hand of god to say it was his wonderful plan to put you two pretty faces together. That's why the conversations end so soon.
It should be the other way around. If you believe in something you can't see,feel,touch, hear then its up to you to explain it. If we have to disprove things we might as well do mermaids.
The only explanation I can think of for god is that we thought of it and it was all we could do at the time with our knowledge. But the same can be said for aliens.
all right. so am i the only one who thinks both these guys are just fed? he's so fucked up now that he has to come back as two different members so he can argue with himself.
all right. so am i the only one who thinks both these guys are just fed? he's so fucked up now that he has to come back as two different members so he can argue with himself.
I'm almost certain you're the only one that thinks that.
I am definitely not arguing. I'd love to debate the god vs godless but we can't get off the ground.
I'm almost certain you're the only one that thinks that.
I am definitely not arguing. I'd love to debate the god vs godless but we can't get off the ground.
He isn't the only one, it crossed my mind. However, considering last i heard fella had 20k debt on his head, even he ain't stupid enough to come outta his foxhole - and believe me, stupid was his thing.
Comments
god's current representative on earth shows most common sense of any of his predecessors by getting "halfway there" to the rest of decent human beings.
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/pope-suggests-contraception-condoned-zika-crisis-170559760.html
Further flip flopping expected around "holy doctrine" when shit gets too real.
Mark
EDIT: i'm actually curious. do the theists here believe that using artificial contraception is a sin or is this one of the official rules that they ignore? do you only have sexual relations in order to procreate? sex for fun is obviously a sin. also, did you all save yourselves for marriage? just wondering as from my experience, these are the rules usually broken.
#stillafuckinglongwaytogo
Mark
Once again missing the nuance in the Holy Father's statement. Not that I am surprised, but still . . .
You are right about him being a great Pope, however.
I am not a Roman Catholic, so I don't claim to speak for them, nor the Pope.
No, I don't think contraception is a sin; I haven't looked into why Catholics do believe it so, I've never seen the reason in my reading of scripture -I suppose it's all about interpretation of a command to "be fruitful and multiply".
My wife and I multiplied ourselves x1 (we have two kids).
Sex for fun (with one's spouse) is certainly - CERTAINLY -not a sin; again not something I have found in scripture.
For more on this see the book "Intended For Pleasure" ( I don't know the author, it's been recommended to me but I have not read it), or the book "Sex God" by Rob Bell (which I have read).
It's somewhat odd to share this on a public forum (lucky no one reads it), but yes both my wife and I did wait until marriage before we had the sex.
Shhh.. shh.. it's okay
y'all catch up someday
Mark
Nice try.
"cheers:
Thought I'd hearken back to that OP almost three years ago now. A so-called "case for atheism" need not be made since a properly defined atheist is not owning a belief but having a lack of belief. It does appear that some so-called atheists behave differently than this but by definition I think that is a fair response to the OP.
However, I like that religious discussion is not banned or anything and that people seem to be able to discuss this pretty humanely on this forum, so I'll throw in a brief two cents of mine.
I believe God exists simply because I look at the universe and cannot picture all of this coming into being without some sort of Being guiding it into existence. I look at something as simple as the sky or my pet dog and it becomes clear in my mind: "This could not have just happened."
Perhaps not the most clearly defined, intellectual thing but this was and still is perhaps the most powerful reason why I can't erase belief in God.
You should emmerse yourself in some advanced physics courses.
... and yet it did.
This is what the OP was referring to. If you are indeed able to say with perfect certainty that the universe and all that is in it came into being and does not require any sort of omnipotent Being then there is an obligation on your part to make a case for that belief. I think I agree with the OP that this is not really possible and would probably require more faith than most atheists think religious people have.
Ultimately without a foundation such as God most of our reality is reduced to absurdity. But that's an argument I'd rather not get into at this point.
When the adherents to magic man in the sky start telling others what they can / can't do (abortion, birth control, subjugate people, delay medical advances, etc. etc.) because "he" says so? I think the onus is on you and yours to show me why I fucking can't.
Mark
I used to be very religious so I maintain some of that that as I move forward in life. I will say that I don't think believing in God is stupid at all. However, in fact, if you can give me some compelling reasons why God and religion is obviously untrue there's a small chance you're doing me a huge favour; as believing in a religiously-bent God has a lot of downsides for me at the moment.
Regardless of what you believe, saying it with respect is appreciated if possible. Some of the hatred some "non-believers" have for religion ironically mirrors some of the hatred they hate seeing exhibited by religious people. If you'd like me to respect your freedom to do whatever you like even if it's contrary to a particular religion, it would be nice if you respected my freedom in believing by not insulting it.
I already have provided reasons to not believe in God ITT. I actually broke it down into 4 parts iirc. I'm too lazy to find them for you though so feel free to read the thread if you want. I'm not going to repeat it all.
Let's put it this way...
The quality of reasons that people believe in got are no better than the quality of reasoning behind not, so therefore, they are choosing to believe in a god not because of any sort of logical or rational edge, but rather from fear, or conditioning from their upbringing - which in my mind is ironically another reason to not believe in god.
Mark
Never had any sorta theological trauma (despite having been an Altar Boy). Grew up Roman Catholic. I just am the kinda guy that questions everything, and when I started looking at the "why" behind the "what" I was being taught, it became fairly clear to me that it's a creation to control the uneducated masses. Fear and shame keeping the under privileged in line.
As for bitterness? Absolutely, but not necessarily towards religion so much as the wilful ignorance, laziness inherent in adherence, and the camouflage it provides for people to feel okay about their own prejudices and profound lack of empathy. It's consistent when you look at how venomous I get at attitudes that are dismissive towards other people's struggles and circumstances, just because you and yours had the good fortune NOT to have that particular hurdle. Abortion clinics closed? Silly girl, just don't get pregnant! Women's rights? Oh come ON women, we've given you like.. nearly 3/4 as much as we have, like, how much more do you want? Equal treatments for LGBTQ? But, their preferred genital combination makes ME slightly uncomfortable!
In terms of religion itself, the biggest issue I have in itself is the fact that it does allow its followers to avoid what I feel is the most crucial aspect of personal betterment. Introspection. I don't have to take a good long hard look at myself, as long as I do what Jesus wants (thank goodness he's a white guy, and the pope has the authority to change the rules that won't make a big deal to my particular demographic, since, you know, he's in it).
Mark
Nobody has been rude or hostile -- you are taking it the wrong way because the god charade is a fraud and as you find out bits and bits through science you began to get upset more. Don't worry this is on track with all believers.
I just have to drop to my knees in laughter when you " give me compelling reasons ". Duh where do you want to start.
Not even one thing from the god side has been true.. not one.. Can't you see that every generation has a new lie, and lies of the previous generation are slowly erased but nobody questions them. Man uses God because its the easiest and most simple and free tool to generate power, believers, money, govts etc.. You then use those follower for wars or profit making depending on your current state of power.
Adam and Eve -- LOL If we all came from A&E how do you explain black people ?
Spread the oceans -- LOL
Burn them witches -- LOL
Earth is the center of the universe --- LOL
The serpent -- LOL
The virgin -- LOL
Muslimania -- LOL
The ever changing views of the church -- LOL
4239 Different Gods -- LOL
Half a dozen sons of God all from different races -- God sounds worst than a ghetto mom -- LOL
You have a 100% ratio of fails and lies. How much do you need ?
Seems a bit hostile imo.
Rude in my opinion, I was just calmly trying to explain my thoughts.
It seems really hard to find a "non believer" who can talk about God without getting mad. Just because I was explaining why I personally believe in God, I don't think it gives you the right to lump me in with all of the bad things about religion and every religious person you've ever encountered that you disliked.
If if you met me in real life not knowing my views on religion I'm sure we'd get along just fine, why can't we act that way in this discussion? Nothing to get upset about, I believe in God. I don't murder people or push my belief's on anyone, as I said, treat me as an individual and respect my views and try to explain nicely why you disagree. As far as I can see, I don't see that in a lot of these posts.
That's all I'm trying to say. If there is no rudeness or hostility what other way am I supposed to take the derogatory remarks like the ones I quoted above?
Of course you can talk however you like, but in this format a discussion is not likely to go anywhere. If there's no respect and you honestly believe believing in God is insanely stupid what is there to achieve by talking about it?
I'm happy to branch on a topic but why bother. They never go anywhere because in the end all believers point to gods magic when they can't explain the topics I mentioned above.
We couldn't get to the root of your dog before you invoked the hand of god to say it was his wonderful plan to put you two pretty faces together. That's why the conversations end so soon.
It should be the other way around. If you believe in something you can't see,feel,touch, hear then its up to you to explain it. If we have to disprove things we might as well do mermaids.
The only explanation I can think of for god is that we thought of it and it was all we could do at the time with our knowledge. But the same can be said for aliens.
I'm almost certain you're the only one that thinks that.
I am definitely not arguing. I'd love to debate the god vs godless but we can't get off the ground.
He isn't the only one, it crossed my mind. However, considering last i heard fella had 20k debt on his head, even he ain't stupid enough to come outta his foxhole - and believe me, stupid was his thing.
Mark