Why Are Athiests So Obsessed With God?
- Thread starter Brutus1964
- Start date
Brutus1964 said:
could we also so see your statement on fact b please
Or shall I do with some of your own words
re-worded it takes a lot of faith to be an theist. This contradiction in terms is not far off the mark..
atheists define faith as an irrational belief that cannot be proven or demonstrated.
There are only two possibilities.
Fact A: god does exist
Fact B: god does not exist
One of these statements is true and one of them is false. There is no way around it. No amount of belief or disbelief can change it. If you are a theist and Fact b is correct then any logic you used to come up with your conclusion is completely irrelevant. Your entire belief system would be in error, and based on false assumptions. If god does not exists then nothing you could possibly come up with could change that fact. Therefore it is possible to, reason, sense and intellect to conclude that god does not exist. For theists to proclaim the existence of god, takes an irrational belief that cannot be proven or demonstrated. It takes a lot of faith.
the preacher said:
The Preacher
That would all be correct, however the difference is that we do not claim to use logic or intellect to come to our conclusion. We live by faith and do not require proof. Therefore there is no contradiction.
Brutus1964: It takes a lot of faith (Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.)to be an atheist. (define this sentence please.)
This contradiction in terms is not far off the mark..(only about the size of infinity)
Atheists themselves define faith as an irrational belief that cannot be proven or demonstrated. (no the dictionarys and the encyclopedias) ( atheist only quote it)
There are only two possibilities.
Fact A: God does exist( based on faith alone)
Fact B: God does not exist (based on the five senses)
One of these statements is true and one of them is false. There is no way around it. No amount of belief or disbelief can change it.
If you are an atheist and Fact A is correct then any logic you used to come up with your conclusion is completely irrelevant( absolutely agreed, it is infantile to say god does not exist, if it is proven it exists, is'nt it).
Your entire belief system would be in error,( atheism is not a believe system, but yes we would be in error if fact A, was right)
and based on false assumptions.( no it would not have been false assumptions untill it was proven it existed )
If God exists then nothing you could possibly come up with could change that fact.( absolutly correct, but it does'nt, there is no prove for fact A at the moment ,is there.)
Therefore it is impossible to us logic and intellect to conclude that God does not exist.( but you would not try to prove, otherwise, it is infantile to say god does not exist, if it is proven it exists, is'nt it)
For atheists to proclaim the non-existence of God takes an irrational belief( there is not irrationality( as I said earlier it's not a believe system, belief is faith) as it has not been proven to exist at this time)
that cannot be proven or demonstrated.( exactly you have'nt proven it's existence)
It takes a lot of faith.( on your part it proberly does, but on I my part I know it does not exist, the onus is on you, as you make the assertion the it exists.)
I quote this it may help you understand brutus, ok.
The existence of a thing can be conclusively proved by producing one single instance of the thing.
To put that another way: -
When the existence of a thing is denied, This can be proven wrong by producing one single instance of the thing said not to exist
The non-existence of a thing can never be conclusively proved because there is always the theoretical assumption that the thing exists but has not been seen yet or it exists in a place that can not be visited. Unless all places in the universe have been visited and are being constantly observed, we can not be absolutely certain.
From this we can say that there are only two possible statements we can make about the existence of a thing:
The thing exists.
It is unknown if the thing exists or not.
It is not possible to prove that a thing "does not exist" without further qualifying criteria.
If a thing does NOT exist it can not leave any evidence of it's non-existence. Only things that DO exist can leave evidence. From this we can derive that conclusive proof can only come from the person that claims that a thing exists. It is nonsensical to demand proof of non-existence.
This contradiction in terms is not far off the mark..(only about the size of infinity)
Atheists themselves define faith as an irrational belief that cannot be proven or demonstrated. (no the dictionarys and the encyclopedias) ( atheist only quote it)
There are only two possibilities.
Fact A: God does exist( based on faith alone)
Fact B: God does not exist (based on the five senses)
One of these statements is true and one of them is false. There is no way around it. No amount of belief or disbelief can change it.
If you are an atheist and Fact A is correct then any logic you used to come up with your conclusion is completely irrelevant( absolutely agreed, it is infantile to say god does not exist, if it is proven it exists, is'nt it).
Your entire belief system would be in error,( atheism is not a believe system, but yes we would be in error if fact A, was right)
and based on false assumptions.( no it would not have been false assumptions untill it was proven it existed )
If God exists then nothing you could possibly come up with could change that fact.( absolutly correct, but it does'nt, there is no prove for fact A at the moment ,is there.)
Therefore it is impossible to us logic and intellect to conclude that God does not exist.( but you would not try to prove, otherwise, it is infantile to say god does not exist, if it is proven it exists, is'nt it)
For atheists to proclaim the non-existence of God takes an irrational belief( there is not irrationality( as I said earlier it's not a believe system, belief is faith) as it has not been proven to exist at this time)
that cannot be proven or demonstrated.( exactly you have'nt proven it's existence)
It takes a lot of faith.( on your part it proberly does, but on I my part I know it does not exist, the onus is on you, as you make the assertion the it exists.)
I quote this it may help you understand brutus, ok.
The existence of a thing can be conclusively proved by producing one single instance of the thing.
To put that another way: -
When the existence of a thing is denied, This can be proven wrong by producing one single instance of the thing said not to exist
The non-existence of a thing can never be conclusively proved because there is always the theoretical assumption that the thing exists but has not been seen yet or it exists in a place that can not be visited. Unless all places in the universe have been visited and are being constantly observed, we can not be absolutely certain.
From this we can say that there are only two possible statements we can make about the existence of a thing:
The thing exists.
It is unknown if the thing exists or not.
It is not possible to prove that a thing "does not exist" without further qualifying criteria.
If a thing does NOT exist it can not leave any evidence of it's non-existence. Only things that DO exist can leave evidence. From this we can derive that conclusive proof can only come from the person that claims that a thing exists. It is nonsensical to demand proof of non-existence.
This is where Matrix's faith comes out into the open. This is a belief with no basis in evidence. You do not know what will make the theists life more "rewarding", much less life itself. You will never know unless you live part of your life as an atheist and part of it as a theist. Even then you will be influenced by many other factors of living, not just one. After you work through that you will have to figure out how much of your experience is applicable to everyone else on the planet. This will take countless years of studying historical, social, psychological, biological, and philosophical evidence. This will help you begin to devise your testable experiments. After that you will have to take into account that your personal biases may have affected the outcome, and most surely have affected how you collected and interpreted the data. Also, with this subject there is a lot of opportunity for the experimental data to become tainted by the subjects themselves.TheMatrixIsReal said:
For now you must depend on other people's assumptions, or your own experience.
Is it reasonable to make the assumption you make in your post?
Let me make a statement I think is more reasonable -
Rising above the competition of the animal kingdom will result in life being more "rewarding" for many, many people.
Religion that offers this as an ideal is valuable, sensible, and practical.
It becomes more sensible the less you insist on putting God into a human box.
Tiassa,
I have seen from some of your posts that you have a strong sense of social responsibility. I am trying to get a better idea of how the atheist comes up with this feeling. What are the ways this compassion arises?
I would love to hear any idea you have on that if you have time.
here is the thread-
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=751499
I understand if you don't have time, we all have so much to do.
I have seen from some of your posts that you have a strong sense of social responsibility. I am trying to get a better idea of how the atheist comes up with this feeling. What are the ways this compassion arises?
I would love to hear any idea you have on that if you have time.
here is the thread-
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=751499
I understand if you don't have time, we all have so much to do.
Brutus1964 said:
Slight changes and bolding mine
Brutus you haven't presented an argument, you have just presented your own conclusions.
In reply to your comments, evidence would enable an athiest to conclude a particular god exists (there are thousands you know and the christian god has no more evidence for his existance than thor, isis zeus or cthulthu).
Godless: The problem with theists is they base their beliefs in ancient books. Written by nuts, who thought their visions to be reality, dreams are interpreted as premonition. Joseph had a dream, that since Mary was nocked up, it was going to be a special kid, and that he should name it Emanuel. You basically base your beliefs on illusions of ancient schizophrenics.
*************
M*W: As always, you've made it perfectly clear. I am an atheist. I don't believe in a god -- my faith resides totally within the power of humanity. Since humanity created the idea of a higher power, humanity is greater than the god we were able to create in our collective consciousness.
*************
Godless: You can believe what ever you want to believe, but don't go assuming we are ingnorant. The only reason you are able to type your BULL SHIT here is because secularism rejected mysticism and got us out of the DARK AGES!!
*************
M*W: Yeah, that's funny, Godless. Those anti-atheists always moaning and groaning that it's the atheists who reject god. They're the ones who created the whole idea of god, and they dis us for not accepting their false delusions!
Thanks for the great links!
*************
M*W: As always, you've made it perfectly clear. I am an atheist. I don't believe in a god -- my faith resides totally within the power of humanity. Since humanity created the idea of a higher power, humanity is greater than the god we were able to create in our collective consciousness.
*************
Godless: You can believe what ever you want to believe, but don't go assuming we are ingnorant. The only reason you are able to type your BULL SHIT here is because secularism rejected mysticism and got us out of the DARK AGES!!
*************
M*W: Yeah, that's funny, Godless. Those anti-atheists always moaning and groaning that it's the atheists who reject god. They're the ones who created the whole idea of god, and they dis us for not accepting their false delusions!
Thanks for the great links!
iliketoponder
Registered Member
"As to spending time on the relegion forum, for me, its amazing the amount of effort people put into promoting/ defending the imaginary being that so utterly controls there minds "
All of our minds are "so utterly controlled" by nature. An UNDERSTANDING of nature fills the empty space in the mind of a person who does not have a religion. Our genes drive us to inquire about the world around us, how everything got here, what our purpose is, to be afraid of death, to want to feel at one with the world, and be a part of something larger, whether it be a group of our own species or something more divine. All these things help explain how religion may be a product of nature. And why atheists still seek these things that religion once satisfied. Science basically IS god revealed, when all of what some call myths and superstitions and religious beleifs are stripped away (i.e. heaven and hell, right and wrong, etc.) Science is immortal. The mother of our universe. Even the guy that lives in the clouds and controlls our thoughts with some kind of remote. lol
All of our minds are "so utterly controlled" by nature. An UNDERSTANDING of nature fills the empty space in the mind of a person who does not have a religion. Our genes drive us to inquire about the world around us, how everything got here, what our purpose is, to be afraid of death, to want to feel at one with the world, and be a part of something larger, whether it be a group of our own species or something more divine. All these things help explain how religion may be a product of nature. And why atheists still seek these things that religion once satisfied. Science basically IS god revealed, when all of what some call myths and superstitions and religious beleifs are stripped away (i.e. heaven and hell, right and wrong, etc.) Science is immortal. The mother of our universe. Even the guy that lives in the clouds and controlls our thoughts with some kind of remote. lol
Try telling that to the Africans that get eaten by lions!.
There's nothing sensible about mind control. And that is what religion has been, it's controled the ingnorant masses, at the whims of psychopaths who call themselve "enlightened or divine" click
Our ancestors consieved the notions of gods by a natural phenomenon of our primitive minds. Perspective of Mind.
Godless.
I will concede to this attack on religion -
There is only one thing worse than a human that acts like a devil. One that acts like a devil, and then calls themselves an angel.
Please re-evaluate your attacks on religion to conform to this idea and you will tap into the important truth atheism presents about it, without adding falseness of it's own.
Also, Godless, mind control exists in many non-religious situations. False accusations of anti-americanism made about people that do not support the president's every action is one example of many. The cub scouts is another. Human weakness, ignorance, and evil are not religious values, even if they are promoted as such by dogmatic, greedy, human, church leaders.
Thinking for yourself is something that comes with maturity. Unfortunately for our society, maturity is not respected or encouraged.
There is only one thing worse than a human that acts like a devil. One that acts like a devil, and then calls themselves an angel.
Please re-evaluate your attacks on religion to conform to this idea and you will tap into the important truth atheism presents about it, without adding falseness of it's own.
Also, Godless, mind control exists in many non-religious situations. False accusations of anti-americanism made about people that do not support the president's every action is one example of many. The cub scouts is another. Human weakness, ignorance, and evil are not religious values, even if they are promoted as such by dogmatic, greedy, human, church leaders.
Thinking for yourself is something that comes with maturity. Unfortunately for our society, maturity is not respected or encouraged.
Last edited:
Can you point to the major civilizations in the past that did not have slavery? Starting from the dawn of history all the way up until the Europeans began to put an end to it, I think you’ll find it was common practice within every “civilization” in the world.TheMatrixIsReal said:
Also, I consider Western civilization to be accredited to the Greeks and Romans (who were more than a little inclined to sell one another off as slaves) and “modern” civilization with the industrial revolution.
However, when you say “beginnings” of modern Western civilization you make it sound as if slavery hadn’t been the norm for all of history up until that point. As if it is slavery that kicked off modern civilization? If anything, the practice of slavery is probably what held back earlier nations such as Rome from having an industrial revolution and hence it was slavery that held back a modern civilization, certainly not what started it!
And we should remember it the Europeans banned the practice and it was from their influence that slavery was abolished within a couple hundred years everywhere else on earth.
TheMatrixIsReal said:
I’m not sure of your point here?
Again, about every civilization and culture practiced slavery - - LONG before Christianity was even a wet dream
Chinese sold one another as slaves.
Europeans sold one another as slaves.
Indians sold one another as slaves.
Arabs sold one another as slaves.
Africans sold one another as slaves.
Europeans owned/sold African slaves
Europeans owned/sold European slaves
Africans owned/sold African slaves
Africans owned/sold European slaves
Arabic owned/sold Africans slaves
etc. . . . .
Hindus owned/sold slaves
Christians owned/sold slaves
Muslims owned/sold slaves
etc. . . . .
Again, about every civilization and culture practiced slavery - - LONG before Christianity was even a wet dream
Chinese sold one another as slaves.
Europeans sold one another as slaves.
Indians sold one another as slaves.
Arabs sold one another as slaves.
Africans sold one another as slaves.
Europeans owned/sold African slaves
Europeans owned/sold European slaves
Africans owned/sold African slaves
Africans owned/sold European slaves
Arabic owned/sold Africans slaves
etc. . . . .
Hindus owned/sold slaves
Christians owned/sold slaves
Muslims owned/sold slaves
etc. . . . .
then why did the catholic church still condone it.?
The Spanish and Portuguese must have been acting outside of the Church, though their practice of slavery wasn't as harsh as the English.
<blockquote>The Spanish considered slavery to be an accidental and unnatural condition for humans. They did not believe slavery was hereditary. Both the law of the Catholic Church and the Spanish legal code (the 13th century Siete Partidas of King Alfonso X) treated slaves as humans rather than as property. The Partidas guaranteed protection of slaves from abusive masters or freeman and allowed slaves to testify in court against their masters. Additionally, because the Catholic Church treats marriage as a holy sacrament and views the family unit as sacred, slave owners could not split up a family by sale. A cedula (royal proclamation) of 1526 allowed slaves to purchase their freedom or coartaciI>. Manumission (an owner granting freedom to a slave), while rare, occurred more frequently under Spanish law than British law. Further, unlike the English, the Spanish used white European slaves, so they did not equate slavery with race. </blockquote>
http://www.slaveryinamerica.org/history/hs_es_florida_slavery_short.htm
This is where you have a problem. To prove religion is the cause of the evil, you must give examples of how a non-religious society would be, or has been, better. Also, you must refute the claims that non-religious societies have been at least as "evil" as those partially influenced by religion. Otherwise the belief implied by the quote above is speculative.TheMatrixIsReal said:
I would say that there are many micro-societies (governments), which have proclaimed the secular rule of law throughout history, and these societies have fared no better in discouraging the "evil" you say is caused by religion.
1% of the American prisioners are not religious, while 14% of the population is non religious. The over representation of religious people in prison shows
1 religious people are more prone to evil deeds or
2 religious people have lower IQ's and thus are more likely to be caught.
I would say its a bit of both.
1 religious people are more prone to evil deeds or
2 religious people have lower IQ's and thus are more likely to be caught.
I would say its a bit of both.