best arguments against religion (no theists)

[comisaru]

at least the person who, obviously, does not know very good english gave it a shot.

Thank you Cato. I'll try to improuve my english.
Reading other posts, I'd like to say that the arguments against religion couldn't be found inside the scriptures. If you accept a debate about some of Book prescriptions, you implicit accept the meaning of Book.
Also I think that "arguments against religion" could be replaced by "opinions about religion".

 

[Yorda]

I simply think I am a man in search of truth. I would love to have god proved to me.

Ok, I'll show you proof of God's existence.

First you have to understand what God is. Most of the things which we have discovered now were already known in the past, but by different names. For example, soul is another word for "person". God is another word for what we know as the "higher self" in psychology (or the "observer" in certain physics). The "voice of God" is another word for conscience and so on.

Gods were often used to explain the world outside and the world within us, in a more interresting way for primitive people. There are infinite "gods". God is similar to light, which can be divided into infinite colors.

There is always one supreme God in all religions. Today, we know God as the "self" within us. You know that there is a "self" within you, and within me, and everyone else. Even "dead" things like stones have a "self", they're just not conscious of it. The atoms obey the self at all times because they don't have a conscious mind. Now you know what God is, and you know that it exists. It is you.

In the Beginning of the Bible, Abel murdered his brother. Abel looked around to see that no one saw him. He started to feel scared, somehow he knew that someone saw him. Then "the voice of God" spoke: "Where is your brother?"

This clearly indicates that God is equal to the "self": the thing that makes everything move.

 

[Sarkus]

First you have to understand what God is.

Well, what your idea of God is, surely?

God is another word for what we know as the "higher self" in psychology (or the "observer" in certain physics). The "voice of God" is another word for conscience and so on.

Ah - so this is your idea of what God is.
This is not true of a large number of theistic beliefs.

There is always one supreme God in all religions.

I think the Romans and Greeks would disagree.

Today, we...

I think you mean YOU...

....know God as the "self" within us. You know that there is a "self" within you, and within me, and everyone else. Even "dead" things like stones have a "self", they're just not conscious of it. The atoms obey the self at all times because they don't have a conscious mind. Now you know what God is, and you know that it exists. It is you.

Okay - so you have managed to prove that "god exists" by saying "god = you, you know that you exist, thus god exists".
This is specific to the idea that "God is you."

In the Beginning of the Bible, Abel murdered his brother. Abel looked around to see that no one saw him. He started to feel scared, somehow he knew that someone saw him. Then "the voice of God" spoke: "Where is your brother?"

This clearly indicates that God is equal to the "self": the thing that makes everything move.

Unfortunately this is not a clear indication. It is merely an interpretation.
Other religions (Christianity, for example) take a far more literal interpretation.


Okay - so your "god" exists - because you exist and your god is you.
But why call it "god"?
Why not call it "you"?

 

[Yorda]

Ah - so this is your idea of what God is.

Of course. It's impossible for me to talk about anything else than me and my ideas.

Unfortunately this is not a clear indication. It is merely an interpretation.
Other religions (Christianity, for example) take a far more literal interpretation.

Literal? What is God? What is it supposed to represent, if not a higher self?

Okay - so your "god" exists - because you exist and your god is you.
But why call it "god"?
Why not call it "you"?

cuz people are used to the word God. I must relate between God and the real self in order to explain that God is supposed to represent our higher self. This is relativity.

...lololol. "Originally posted by Jenyar". That's the funniest thing i've heard in my life this far!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Sarkus]

...lololol. "Originally posted by Jenyar". That's the funniest thing i've heard in my life this far!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

D'oh!
No idea how that happened!!

Ah well, corrected now.

Literal? What is God? What is it supposed to represent, if not a higher self?

To many "God" does not represent anything - he IS his literal being. "God" is not a representation of self, or of any other thing - it is "god" to those people.

It would be like asking what "red" is meant to represent - when it is nothing other than what it is.

cuz people are used to the word God. I must relate between God and the real self in order to explain that God is supposed to represent our higher self. This is relativity.

But you imply through the use of the word "God" MORE than physical being - more than just consciousness - for which you still haven't provided proof of. You haven't defined "self" (a "self" that a rock also has, according to you) adequately to be able to say what proves the existence of this "self".

If you claim it is more than just the chemical and physical rules governing the thing then please provide the evidence.

 

[Yorda]

To many "God" does not represent anything - he IS his literal being. "God" is not a representation of self, or of any other thing - it is "god" to those people.

God is a "being"? A male? A person? Has feelings, thoughts etc? Then he is literally a human, isn't he? Except that he has infinite power. So, you see, he represents something. But how illogical is that?

God is THE "Being" (existence)

You haven't defined "self" (a "self" that a rock also has, according to you) adequately to be able to say what proves the existence of this "self".

Rocks are made of atoms. Electrons move around the nucleus of the atom. What gives electrons their source of power? "Magnetism" (unknown to today's phycisists) What gives magnetism its source of power? Separation. What separates the negative from the positive? The mind (ie. consciousness, self or "God")

heaven (consciousness) and earth (material universe, manifestation of mind) were set apart. quran: " 21:30 Do the Unbelievers not see that the heavens and the earth were joined together, before We clove them asunder??"

If you claim it is more than just the chemical and physical rules governing the thing then please provide the evidence.

There is nothing physical. Everything is in our mind. "Matter" is a part of our mind. You can't be conscious of the universe unless it is in your consciousness. So, the universe is in my mind and it is not physical.

 

[cato]

There is nothing physical

thats what always happens. when you argue with a theist long enough, they always come back to existentialism, or pure irrationality. I wish we could ban people for being existential/irrational. what is the point of coming to this site if nothing is real? we are here to talk about science, but if the universe is within your mind, then science is worthless because anything can change at any time.

 

[Yorda]

inane

thats what always happens.

no not always.

when you argue with a theist long enough,

wut

they always come back to existentialism, or pure irrationality.

u probably mean this

I wish we could ban people for being existential/irrational.

ye me too, those bastards

what is the point of coming to this site if nothing is real?

i didn't come here i was born here. nothing is the only thing which is real. it is a "point" with nothing. that's the point.

we are here to talk about science,

negative. here we're supposed to talk religion with science and religion people :bugeye:

but if the universe is within your mind,

yeah what then?

then science is worthless because anything can change at any time.

oh, what why would anything change. yea it changes.

 

[Lawdog]

Ok, I'll show you proof of God's existence.

This clearly indicates that God is equal to the "self": the thing that makes everything move.

Why dont you at least respect their wishes and not post on this thread?

 

[Hapsburg]

Same to you, lapdog.

 

[Lawdog]

Since you slap me thusly unwarranted, one who would have defended your wishes, (what more could one expect of rabid dogs)
i will now join Yorda in defiance and posting here. Sorry, thou loseth.

 

[superluminal]

Lawdog,

Why do you speak in biblish? Thusly I say unto you, thou shouldest stop speaking in such an unseemly prickish way. It maketh thou to have the aspect of an ass.

 

[cato]

perhaps, I should ask theists to argue for their side. however, it will all be nonsense anyway, so it don't matter.

 

[Hapsburg]

Since you slap me thusly unwarranted, one who would have defended your wishes, (what more could one expect of rabid dogs)
i will now join Yorda in defiance and posting here. Sorry, thou loseth.

You sound like a fucking jackass. Put up or shup up.

 

[jayleew]

perhaps, I should ask theists to argue for their side. however, it will all be nonsense anyway, so it don't matter.

Let's be honest here, there is no scientific case for God. Let's also recognize that there is a scientific case for an alternate theory of creation, which is natural selection. Does the lack of any alternate theory, other than random selection, automatically mean that it is true; a theory that has a case, but cannot be proven because the amount of time required to observe the process?

I realize that if it were proven true, then logic would say that there is no God. For now, we are stuck with a choice to have faith that because we see a river, then that must mean there is a water source upriver (without seeing the source). Under normal circumstances, I would jump on board and agree, even though I do not see the source either.

Why is it so easy for non-theists to believe that random selection is the cause of human life? A lack of a better alternative? Why should we not question everything? If it is one thing life teaches us, it is that not everything is as it seems. We grow trusting in science, only for us to find new evidence that disproves what they were so adamant was true before. Life is not so easy as to put in a test tube and measure it.

One thing science teaches us is that we will never completely be able to understand anything. With every truth, there are always more questions. How can anyone have that much faith in science's hypothesises today? Maybe it is those who see science as the only true thing in their life. The only thing that doesn't let them down. Why do non-theists (and some theists) believe in evolution as fact and not as a case?

 

[(Q)]

Why is it so easy for non-theists to believe that random selection is the cause of human life?

It's not a matter of believing, it's a matter of evidence.

We grow trusting in science, only for us to find new evidence that disproves what they were so adamant was true before.

The only thing that could disprove evolution is a god. Got one?

One thing science teaches us is that we will never completely be able to understand anything.

Science is a system of understanding, your logic does not follow.

With every truth, there are always more questions.

True, but science does not deal in truths.

How can anyone have that much faith in science's hypothesises today?

Understanding the evidence.

Why do non-theists (and some theists) believe in evolution as fact and not as a case?

It has been stated before that all facets of science point to evolution as correct, from biology to cosmology.

You will also come to the same conclusions, if you take the time to study and understand the evidence.

 

[jayleew]

Why is it so easy for non-theists to believe that random selection is the cause of human life?

It's not a matter of believing, it's a matter of evidence.

It is circumstantial evidence. I could just as well say that aliens came down and influenced the DNA. The only way to prove this evidence is to actually observe the process. We observe microevolution, but there are too many unknowns over billions of years. A lot could have happened that science is guessing by the evidence.

We grow trusting in science, only for us to find new evidence that disproves what they were so adamant was true before.

The only thing that could disprove evolution is a god. Got one?

You cannot disprove evolution because it is not proven. It only has evidence. A person must make a choice to logically say that it is true given the evidence. It is not imperical.

With every truth, there are always more questions.

True, but science does not deal in truths.

Then why do we have people saying that its theory of evolution is true?

How can anyone have that much faith in science's hypothesises today?

Understanding the evidence.

I understand the evidence, but I also know that evidence is not truth. Evidence needs to be interpreted, and many times the interpretation is wrong.

Why do non-theists (and some theists) believe in evolution as fact and not as a case?

It has been stated before that all facets of science point to evolution as correct, from biology to cosmology.

And some equally respected scientists say the opposite.

You will also come to the same conclusions, if you take the time to study and understand the evidence.

I have arrived at the same conclusions as you, but I choose to not believe this evidence because of the potential implications and the lack of observation of the process.

Why do I choose to be illogical concerning God?
If you combine personal experiences and testimonies you hear, one's personal beliefs are developed upon evidence and stories (fact or fiction).
You could tell me a story about aliens and I am more apt to go along with you if I thought I saw one. Does this prove there are aliens? No, but it explains why one, such as myself, would go against logical evidence that is not yet fact. And, if I (a natural skeptic) believe in God, does that mean anything? Why is it that the larger number of people you have giving you an answer, chances are that the more accurate the answer is? Could it be that most people on Earth believe in a god? Whether or not they all agree on the same god, they agree there is more to life than what meets the eye. Human condition? Then, is it safe to say that anyone who is not a theist is exhibiting abnormal behavior since they do not succumb to the normal human condition?

 

[cato]

Whether or not they all agree on the same god, they agree there is more to life than what meets the eye.

something similar to this came up in the thread about what atheists posit highest authority. the response to that thread showed me one huge difference. atheists don't need a romanticized world. theists want there to be more than meets the eye because they are not satisfied by the world around them, atheists are. its like Marx said, religion is an opiate, we (atheists) don't need that drug.

Then, is it safe to say that anyone who is not a theist is exhibiting abnormal behavior since they do not succumb to the normal human condition?

yeah, any time someone does something that is in the minority, it is abnormal. if theology is "normal" then I would rather be abnormal. it is a battle between aspects of humanity, on one hand, you have imagination, and the other logic, atheists choose logic.

 

[jayleew]

yeah, any time someone does something that is in the minority, it is abnormal. if theology is "normal" then I would rather be abnormal. it is a battle between aspects of humanity, on one hand, you have imagination, and the other logic, atheists choose logic.

Good enough. Logic is good and useful for living, but I would not let it make such an important decision. Besides, a life with God is a life of peace, even in hard times. Not to say, someone without God could also have the same, but it is easier with help because of human nature that works against logic.

Come to the darkside, it is easier and quicker way to enlightenment.

 

[JeremyHope1]

Apologies, i was directed to this link because i am lost spiritually or religiously. However, i have arrived at a conclusion. I must preface by conceding that because "I" arrived at the conclusion, the thought is tangible only to our presence.

Here is my argument. If an atheist spends his life arguing against or for the proof of no GOD, or supreme being- which is unprovable in our plane or consciousness or lifetime. Then when he/she dies they have gained research but no answer. Still hopeless and discontent that his threoy was not solidified.
If a person seeks GOD, through doing the same research and praying. Then when he dies and along the way he/she has gained hope and lost nothing.
Seems to me that above the arguments for or against, that the only fruitful life is a hopeful life?
I'm sure that is oversimplified-but am I wrong and why?
Because, in two cases, i have witnessed atheists pray to god for help in flight and near a drowning. Conversely, i havent heard the same abandonment of faith during a crisis.
thank you.