Why are you Atheist Agnsotic?

I'm an existential atheist, because I think that the whole belief of some supernatural being that created our universe in 7 days is stupid, and the fact that he would send his son to die on a cross to 'cleanse our sins', it's just proposterous.

Christians say that his 'God' gave us a freewill and a sexuality, yet they believe that their 'God' says that we're not allowed to use it. Why?

 

M B '67

Agree
But consider this.. Because the church in your example provides such
a simplistic and irrational description of 'a god' and it's acts in our reallity.
This in no way invalidates the initial premise.
That being the concept that it is quite possible that there is a 'god' or
some directing power in our universe.

As an agnostic, occam holds NONE of the descriptions of a possible 'god'
made by religions as having any realworld validity.

'A god' is quite possible. And that is ALL that human beings can say is 'fact'
Not. 'there is a god'
or 'there is no god'
just..'there could be'
Thus
Agnosticism

Occam

 

True, but I consider myself an atheist, because I don't believe that a 'God' is responsible for the balance in our universe.

If anything, I believe in Karma, as a way of balancing the universe. Someone dies, Someone is born to take their place. Something good happens to someone, something bad must happen to keep the balance.

I do believe in that, because I have experienced these things personally. I believe that something controls the way that these balances work. It could just be coincedence, but I just prefer to sit back and let it all happen then to live my life wondering about who does the balancing.

 

well i don't know about "directing powers" or feel there is a need for them, but my sense is that there is something, big, friendly and nontangable.

just no requirement for anything to not be, and none for whatever is that no one knows about, to resemble what they think they know about it.

it doesn't have to be omniscient or infallable or uber anything. if it is it is. that's ok too.

as for ballance, i think too much is made of that. maybe a balance between matter and energy in tangable physical space.

the example of people dieing and being born is an excellent example of nonballance. if it was balance, population levels would be self optomising and not expotentialy crowding out any sort of balance of everything else.

but i do aggree with the existence of statistical reality, that kharma, kharma as i see kharma, catches up with everybody sooner or later, be they a god or a parmicium. not neccessarily in any one particular lifetime or eternaly or any of that either.

that's not so much a matter of balance as it is simply of somethings happening more often depending on what others happen first.

probability is something we can observe the existence of. it doesn't require anything to not exist. but it is something that certainly appears to.

=^^=
.../\...

 

True, but once again I consider myself an atheist, because I don't want to follow any religion because they make their followers give up their humanistic rights to follow their religion.

Take Catholic Priests and Nuns, they can't have sex. That's a human right to have sex, yet they restrict them from doing so. And then every religion out there have rules about sex, not before marriage, not with someone of the same sex, not with yourself, etc.

What is the importance of these stupid rules about sex? None whatsoever. Did 'God' tell you personally that he thinks that gays should be stoned to death? No, he didn't, and if you think that he did, you're insane.

 

id just like to say that i'm athiest because welll....i need more proof than just some book that coulda been written by anyone before i devote my life to a religion....

 

Exactly!

 

mb '67

A 'god' does not need to do so.
Objective laws well crafted can do all that.

Occam

 

MichaelByrd1967

Get off this religion thing man..
Religion is the arse end of understanding.
They know NOTHING of god.. so dont believe the caca they produce.

We here on this forum..allong with many others.. ARE the leading edge on the question of god..
Please dont mention the rubbish religion proposes.

Occam

 

Ok, it's just that I'm use to talking about that to my family because they're all still devout Catholics, so it's kind of a habit, but alright...

 

mb'67

Sorry for sounding bossy..

Occam can well understand that it is very likely the catholicism of your
family has stubbed it's toe on your thinking mind.
And that this catholicism is the 'arguement' that seems to offer such
whacky ideas about the question of 'a' god.
Occam rejected all of them years back cause he realised that religious
people were not actually argueing, they were defending anothers
interpretation of a book.

Occam finds the 'catholic interpretation' to be especially silly.
But not nearly a crazy a some.

religion...the bigger the lie. the more likely it is to be believed.

Occam

 

I've found I really can't argue my own atheism on anything more than a personal level. I know in my own mind that a god or gods don't exist. I have no other reason to believe differently.
Does anyone in here think in another way? Anyone more forceful about their atheism? Militant atheist?

 

fritz

AN empiricist...That u be my friend.
If u cant see it. it dont exist.
If u cant see it.. the idea that it exists beyond your vision is false.

can u see black holes. ?
No. and nobody else can either.
but they exist.
how do we know this.. work it out and u will no longer be an empiricist.

To occam 'indicative evidence' can BE evidence.
As science well knows. Half of 'scientific fact' is just that.

There IS to occam, much indicative evidence of a direction in reality.

Show to occam that the massive complexity of our univese is a product of chance. And occam will believe u.
You dont have to prove god or any such crud.
Just show that random chance can result in our universe.

If u cannot. u are an agnostic.

Occam

 

Because the people who claim there is a god(s) have failed miserably to demonstrate that there is.

As Sagan would say "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

As a side note, I searched for that quote on google, and found many apologist sites trying to counter it. In fact, the first hit is one. It never ceases to amaze me the lengths people will go to to try and keep their feeble beliefs proped up. "No, no, no... we don't need no stinking evidence... our preposterous assertions rest on their own preposterousness".

 

Dude, the "Black Hole, Things That Are Invisible Are there..." Argument is exactly what catholics do to prove to you that there is a 'God'. And that's a stupid way to prove 'God'. I'm gonna need more than Black Holes and Bananas.

 

false

black holes produce 'effects'
the catholic god does not.

Thus we know black holes exist.
But there is NO INDICATIVE EVIDENCE for the existance of the description of god put forward by the papists.

Occam

 

The "personal" god that is a god of mind or a god of culture is a creation of man. He, she, it , they whatever are products of what we hope, believe, want to believe or are inculcated from birth to believe and as such is just a product of the mind of man. It, or they are mere fantasy and myth designed to scare small children or to asuage the soles of old folks who are about to die.

The ineffable presence that isn't even "god" because even god is something that can be imagined or thought of, is beyond description or proof. It exists beyond anything that your mind can conceive. I cannot "proove" it. I can say that evidence points to it or that I "believe" it to be so but it is beyond my ability to proove.
In the same vein many tennents of science cannot be proved (I have argued this before). You cannot "proove" that there was a big bang. You can deduce as much or say that the evidence points to it but there is no "proof" that cannot be reasonably be argued to mean something else as well.
You cannot "proove" the singularity at the center of a black hole...infact the science and mathmatics that you base so many proofs on break down at the point of singularity. The Ineffable Presence is in essence singularity...beyond proof.
You cannot, as a matter of course, tell me with absolute certainty what GRAVITY IS or what TIME IS or for that matter what SPACE TIME IS and yet you base all of science on these things...yes, you can predict what the DO and make wonderful and marvelous inventions with that knowledge but you still haven't solved the fundemental "IS" question.
Science can work even when the explanation is WRONG. Ben Franklin had a 50/50 chance to get the flow of electricity right when he arbitrarily assigned POSITIVE and NEGATIVE to the the electric potentials that he had discovered. Never mind he got it exactly WRONG (electricity flows from negative to positive although the terminology is backward) all things electric still work. Hell, Ptolomey's universe served well for thousands of years even though it was wrong.
There are things that must be taken as faith in science as in religion...things that are beyond proof as we now know it now. I just wish the two sides would respect each other's mutual ignorance until which time man has advanced far enough to actually make a decision. It is the height of arrogance at this time in our evolution to believe that we can make that call. Who knows, maybe it is like quantum mechanics / relativity...they both may be right in their respective frame of reference.

by the way, you can tell me that gravity curves space time and that we are in a gravity well or you can describe gravitons that have yet to be observed or discovered but some how fit into the standard model...you can do all of that but you still haven't told me what gravity is. It is there and here on earth there is no getting away from it but what is it?

 

There is plenty of evidence. What is lacking is your ability to interprete it, which only comes through diligent and faithful seeking (much like scientific knowledge).

I'll give you a clue: Look for order where (statistically speaking) it should not arise.

 

i am atheist because all religious have major flaws which cause them to be false.

 

There is a lot of unnecessary stuff in there considering you are quoting, and apparently answering, me.

I said nothing of proof. I said "demonstrate". It's not too hard to demonstrate gravity or electricity. Don't believe me, then jump off a tree into some electrical wires. Nor is it hard to demonstrate the scientific theories for how these work. I'm well aware that these are scientific theories, and that the theories may change as more knowledge is gained.

I'm waiting for the same level of demonstrations from theists. All I ever get is circular reasoning, "god of the gaps", etc. The same sort of smoke and mirrors that can be used to prop up any similar thing, like scientology, FSM, or the invisible fairies that cause gravity.

If you can't in any way, shape, or form demonstrate that it exists, please stop wasting people's time about it. You can't demonstrate that it did exist at some point but didn't promptly turn into a ham sandwich and crash into a star. It's a pointless endeavor, that is only in the realm of fantasy.