Atheists can't explain existence.

[TX-Beau]

This is all verbal gymnastics at this point. I think we all realize that. Except Andrew maybe.

But then he's only after the attention after all so really, have fun with it, that way everybody wins.



I think Vanti, we need some Atheist Dolphins in the act of claiming the non existence of god!!!!!

 

[Aaron]

Oy vey.

Why are you an atheist if you can offer no proof for this belief?

Atheism is a NON-belief; atheism is NOT a belief. If you ever want to answer your own questions, you will have to understand that first.

I don't need to offer proof. I contend nothing, I provide no theory, I have no theistic belief to which I subscribe. I simply disbelieve. Quite frankly, since the believer is the one that often lives his life in accordance with some belief system, I would argue that the burden of proof rests with the believer.

If I tell you that the Purple Space Ant rules the universe, is it your job to prove me wrong? Of course not.

And please don't pretend to me that this is all your atheism is about and it has no ramafications on other aspects of your psychology or beliefs.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here.

Are you saying you will go through life only believing thing you can prove without a doubt?

If I prove something beyond doubt, it is something I know, not something in which I believe.

What do you believe in?

I believe in leaving the world a better place than I found it. And hopefully, if I play my cards right, when things are winding down for me I will know that I have accomplished that.

 

[sunoftheskye]

sunoftheskye, please read this post over and over and over again until you get it through your thick head



You are claiming to be an agnostic.

Not quite, try again. The words agnostic and atheist have been used in a multitude of different ways, and simply looking at the definitions in a few of the world's most popular encyclopedias will tell you that.

Not having enough evidence either way is not my belief. The evidence of evolution far outweighs the "evidence" (is there even any?) of a creator. Am I open to the possibility that there is a creator? I suppose. There is a possibility. Just as there is a possibility the universe was created by a fairy princess or flying spaghetti monster. But using rational logic, it's highly, highly unlikely.

Am I open to the possibility that evolution is wrong? Yes. But that's the great thing about science. It's 100% honest about the fact that it could be wrong, and when evidence presents itself that proves such, it is glad to evolve.

 

[Pill Pusher]

Imagine you and your Husband had a beautiful child (they exist in the real world)

The child died at twelve of a devastating illness. Now your partner believes in God but you absolutely don't. How do you comfort your partner?

Their main solace is the fact that although they are grieving they will meet their dear child again in the afterlife.

Atheism does impact on people and it is an affront to their values and beliefs. It is not benign as people are trying to make out.

Now if the belief was valid then it may be hurtfull but true.

But it doesn't have a foundation to justify its application in any area of life. That is why I don't back down here.

So your argument is that even if there isn't a god and there isn't an afterlife, you'd rather believe it for the comfort it provides. I'm sorry, but that isn't rational thinking. That's what society calls being delusional.

And I've been waiting for awhile for you to address my "explanation" on existence, like it or hate it, please respond to it. Kthnx.

 

[sunoftheskye]

So your argument is that even if there isn't a god and there isn't an afterlife, you'd rather believe it for the comfort it provides. I'm sorry, but that isn't rational thinking. That's what society calls being delusional.

And I've been waiting for awhile for you to address my "explanation" on existence, like it or hate it, please respond to it. Kthnx.

Thank you.

The fact that religion provides comfort to people is a whole different issue that can be discussed at length, but has nothing to do with the validity of it or lackthereof.

 

[Pill Pusher]

Your intial claim was..

"Again, human machineries are not good evidence as to what happens in the natural world."

Human machines can only operate within natural laws. Do you understand that? Human machines can only operate within nature not outside of it.

Okay, lets trace back the discussion. I was saying that the existence of human machineries, inventions, products (being manufactered and created by humans) are not innate to nature. I mentioned nothing of the mechanisms in which they operate. There's a little thing called context. Use it.

 

[sunoftheskye]

Dear God, is he just trolling for attention? He seems to just keep talking without actually paying much attention to what people are saying.

 

[Pill Pusher]

Thanks for completely misinterpreting my clear post.

I said that if it hasn't got a logical or evidence based foundation then it shouldn't be used to attack peoples ideals.

I didn't say we should pretend their is a God in order to soothe peoples feelings.

Clarity is somewhat subjective, that's why I would rather blame myself for not presenting my arguments well enough than to blame someone else for misinterpreting them.

 

[quasar]

At the end of the day, the thread title is simply a statement with as much truth as the statement 'Religion can't explain existence'. Scientists can't explain how matter came 'to be', and religion can't explain how God came 'to be'. Religion will have you believe that God created matter, and science could argue that God couldn't exist without matter because he IS matter - as he's all around us, and we are made in his own image. Either way, we'll never find out the truth, so in all honesty, agnosticism is most probably the only way to go!!!

 

[Pill Pusher]

You took my whole concept of a driverless car completely out of context.

So really this is a case of pot calling Kettle black...

You are attempting to make superficial divisions in order to conflate a false veiw of nature (which essentially relies on consensus)

I didn't make these terms up. I'm just going by how the english language define them.

By introducing a human produced product into an argument about the natural world (as defined by the English language), that's a bit of a stretch, believe it or not.

 

[gsdx]

How do you comfort your partner?

That is where you don't even try to understand, Andrew. You don't need to share beliefs in order to comfort your partner. You don't need to share beliefs to understand them.

I don't share your beliefs, and I don't understand them. But, by God, if you came on here and posted some personal family tragedy, you can bet your ass that I could comfort you and understand how you're feeling.

Whether or not you would be willing to accept it would be another matter entirely.

You're seeing the world through a straw, Andrew. You see only what is visible from the other end.

You see only this. . .

. . . when you should be seeing this:

Things make a lot more sense when you take the time to look at the whole picture.

.

.

 

[Pill Pusher]

And I've been waiting for awhile for you to address my "explanation" on existence, like it or hate it, please respond to it. Kthnx.

Still waiting...

 

[coyotewileye]

I am probably going to regret getting involved in this mess, but so be it....

Have you noticed not one person has offered an even half reasonable explanation of how things can exist soley on there own for no reason without a cause.

The basic assumption here is wrong. Period. And it has little to do with being atheist or not.

You state as a fact that something suddenly exists without cause. It doesn't. A theist will most likely claim that God created the heaven and the earth, and as such God caused our existance. I don't believe in an almighty God. I believe mankind exists because of billions or years of evolution. So, what was the very first thing that triggered the evolution? I don't know. But I think that at some point that question will be answered. Perhaps not in my lifetime, but sooner or later I am convinced the question will be answered. Was the primordial soup always there or did it "start to exist out of nothing"? Again, I don't know, but I'm sure that some day that question will be answered as well.

Now, let suppose God exists (hypothetically). Has he always existed on his own for nor reason without a cause? Or was God born? If so, did God's mother always exist? Fact is that you cannot answer that question, just like I cannot answer what sparked the evolution. But it doesn't mean neither will forever be unexplained.

When people died of the Plague, it was not known why. Today, we know that virusses and bacteria and cancer are among the things that can kill without being visible to the naked eye. Mankind didn't know that 500 years ago. It is entirely possible that either God's existence or the first cause of evolution can be proofed without any doubt in 500 years. Or perhaps even both.

But Andrew, please don't make the false assumption that if mankind doesn't know the answer to the existance question right now, it doesn't mean it won't exist.

 

[TX-Beau]

Why is god required for there to be purpose in life. (Or Porpoise for that matter (grin.))

There's another one of those illogical assumptions.

BUT BUT BUT I didn't say that!!!!

Really? It certainly looks like you did.

AHA! YOU"RE making the claim that purpose existed in the matter free realm of the unsubstantiated atheist claims about small green snails!!!!!


LOL

 

[Pill Pusher]

Someone's pulling a Palin....

Sorry, that was a cheap dig.

 

[Aaron]

Well.. thats all pointless in the face of a purposeless world...

Who said anything about a purposeless world? Are you implying that because I deny the existence of a god I lack purpose to my life?

Leaving the world a better place than I found it sounds like a decent purpose in itself.

 

[Aaron]

1. What is a non belief?

2. Do you believe that God doesn't exist?

3. Your idea that God doesn't exist is a belief?

4. If I claimed there aren't cows on the mooon that is A BELIEF until I can prove it empirically.

I'll try to explain this again, but I fear I will be repeating myself.

1. A non-belief is the opposite of a belief, but it is not necessarily an opposing belief.

2. I do not believe that any god exists.

3. No, it is not a belief. I am not establishing any belief of my own; I am simply expressing disagreement with a believer. I'll agree that it is a fine line, but it is there nonetheless.

4. Your example is flawed. It is conventional wisdom that there are no cows on the moon. Therefore, most people know that there are no cows on the moon, and so the point that it is belief is moot because it is accepted as fact. But let's continue with it as an exercise.

You come to me and say "I believe there are no cows on the moon." Fine, you have stated a personal belief; believe what you want. Let's say for the sake of this flawed example that I disagree with you. I am not stating an opposing belief, simply that I disbelieve your theory.

This extends to the religious example. The believer says "I believe that a god exists." Fine, you have stated a personal belief; believe what you want. I disagree with that believer - I deny the existence of a god. I am not stating an opposing belief, simply that I disbelieve his theory.

 

[TX-Beau]

Well.. thats all pointless in the face of a purposeless world...

All things are pointless in porpoiseless world.......

 

[sunoftheskye]

He uses religion as an argument but won't admit to whether or not he believes in God. By using religion as the basis of his argument he is putting himself on the side of religion.

That's the way I see it, anyway.

But refuses to defend religion. lol

 

[Etched]

Lol, I love these little rants, both sides basically go "RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!" untill one storms out of the room.

Religion and logic aren't compatible, one is quantitative the other is qualitative.

Attempting to use logic and reasoning to as a basis for creationism is ridiculous it's like "Ohh that apple fell off the tree? Why? Because God did it. Who's God? God's the person who made the apple fall"

And arguing that science can't explain something so therefore it must be wrong is ridiculous.

Religion has been around in some shape or form for what, 10,000 years? The Scientific method is only about 500 years old. In 500 years, science has explained an awful lot more things than religion ever has, and unlike religion, science will continue to not only explain more things, but also find more things to be explained.