This discussion may surprise some of you, people usually put logic and atheism in the same sentence, some people even claim that to be completely rational one has to be an atheist. Today I hope to show you the absurdity of Atheism, not weak atheism, but strong, militant atheism. After reading the ‘God Delusion’ I thought Dawkins had thrown religion and my beliefs into a garbage bin; I had lost my faith and became what they call a ‘skeptic’. However, instead of committing intellectual suicide and becoming an atheist, I was an Agnostic Deist for quite some time; I couldn’t rule out God as I had no reason too or empirical evidence to do so.
I somehow or other got my faith back (or more so destroyed my skeptical self and instead of saying, ‘I doubt it.’ Saying, ‘perhaps.’) and then it struck me, atheism is some what irrational. There are always reasons why one does or does not believe in something. For example I don’t believe in Santa because there is no man on the North pole and it is a fact that Santa was created by Coca Cola. I have reasons not to believe in pokemon, flying tea pots or even a flying spaghetti monster. When I ask an atheist why they do not believe in God, they have no rational reasons to deny His existence none, zero, nada. This is rather odd, many atheists are famous scientists who are used to using empirical evidence and observation their whole lives and yet make the illogical conclusion that God does not exist. Dawkins thought that evolution proved that God was not in existence but was by humans (which is a big assumption). Dawkins has not ‘disproven’ God, he has dismissed a God some fundamentalists believe in.
A reason for a belief or lack of belief is a necessity for something to hold any weight.
Premise 2 needs to be backed up by something. Think about it for a second, any non belief you have is backed up by reason; you do not believe not believe n Zeus because you do not believe in him, you have some concrete reasons not to believe he exists. Perhaps even the Judeo-Christian God, you have reasons to dismiss. But you can not logically dismiss God. A being who created the universe may exist.
Some people will then try to bring in the flying tea pot argument, 'We can never dismiss that a flying tea pot does not exist, should we believe in it?' When rational people are talking about God they do not give Him any form (They may imagine He has a brown beard and appears somewhat Jewish) but we have no idea the form of God. God and the flying tea pot are not on the same page, one would have to use scientific evidence and observation to see if a flying tea pot exists. One can not see God, therefore we enter the realm of meta-physics. So what are your guys views? I will take back what I said about atheism being irrational if I am proven wrong (note: I am talking about strong atheism, not weak).
"I am not saying what God. I am merely saying that the universe had to have a begining and that begining was God. Im not saying that Jesus is God or that Mohammad is God's prophet. I am a Christian on how a define God, if God was to exist, He would be perfect. Absolute perfection is love, therefore God would be love. That is how I get to the Christian God."
"There are still reasons why you think it will rain, however, you have no reason not to believe a God exists."
He (we) also have no reason to believe that a God does exist either.
This is an important point that Christopher Hitchens raises frequently. There's a world of difference between a deistic God and an theistic one: a cosmic creator or a personal God.
A deistic God is, essentially, stripped down to his bare essentials. He created the universe, so he's omnipotent and omniscient. End of story. He's not a meddling, personal, God.
A theistic God has many attributes. Omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent and omni-sexually-repressed. He's a personal God who answers prayers, performs miracles, punishes sinners and tempts the faithful (so he can punish them too). Theistic Gods demand worship. They crave recognition. They may be omni-everything but they have a soft spot for grovelers.
Claiming belief in a cosmic God might not have much logical basis. But claiming belief in a personal God is simply ridiculous.
most of us dont claim to know for sure wiether or not a god exists...we just dont currently believe in one. that's sort of what the definition is you see.
However, instead of committing intellectual suicide and becoming an atheist, I was an Agnostic Deist for quite some time; I couldn’t rule out God as I had no reason too or empirical evidence to do so.
I think that you have established a false dichotomy: either rule out God's existence entirely or necessarily accept a belief in his existence. It is entirely possible to reject all belief in God's existence yet refrain from ruling out his existence entirely. The latter relates to proving a negative, which is generally consider an epistemological impossibility. Or, at the very least, an unsound foundation for a further conclusion.
However, if a statement cannot be disproven, we are not then automatically required to accept its validity. This is where I think that you have drawn a false dichotomy.
I have reasons not to believe in pokemon, flying tea pots or even a flying spaghetti monster. When I ask an atheist why they do not believe in God, they have no rational reasons to deny His existence none, zero, nada.
What are your reasons not to believe in Pokemon, flying tea pots, or the Celestial Prince of Pasta? [Sorry, couldn't resist.:) ] I speculate that your reasons would probably be that these things violate known laws of physics/biology/chemistry, deviate entirely from your known experience of reality, and are utterly lacking any demonstrable existence beyond the realm of imagination. These are roughly the same reasons by which many people arrive at a rejection in the belief in God.
Think about it for a second, any non belief you have is backed up by reason; you do not believe not believe n Zeus because you do not believe in him, you have some concrete reasons not to believe he exists. Perhaps even the Judeo-Christian God, you have reasons to dismiss. But you can not logically dismiss God. A being who created the universe may exist.
What is your definition of God? It sounds like you recognize the reasons by which people have rejected belief in the gods of various mythologies and religions. For this debate to continue any further, you must clarify your operating definition of "God." A mutual understanding of all terms is necessary for rational discourse.
Adam I apologise if I my last comment was a bit dismissive. Rather than having these all encompassing conversations that can be misinterpreted and not do justice to you would it be possible for you just to write a few bullet points – say 5 or 6 statements of WHAT you actually believe about god and a brief description as to WHY you believe each of them.
Just a few simple lines for each will suffice. Lets left the metaphsics out of it. I am not asking for any proof so it should be easy. I would like to give careful consideration to what your beliefs are. Thanks in advance.
Some of you are so painfully patient. I don't know how you do it.
I believe there is no god. Not in the chance that there could be a god, especially not the inevitable “what if” there is a God. I simply do not believe in any god or gods. People are irrationally bound to the idea that god must exist therefore I must believe in him. Despite the fact that they will spend their existence never having been shown proof.
I believe so it must be so.
Children believe in Santa. Why? Because their parents lie to them and tell them he is real. Children see pictures of him, watch movies about him, and read about him. To me that is absolutely no different then, the followers, god, and the church. The churches are the parents telling the follower to believe in Santa (god), although I picture him with camels instead of reindeer. Probably a tad more cynical and jealous too. Not so much jolly as in wrath.
Believing in god makes him no more real then me imagining Felix the Cat real. In my imagination I can make both as real as I want and make them say and do whatever I wish. Only thing I can’t do is have them tell me anything I do not already know.
God doesn’t live in the sky, in a cloud castle, or under a rock. He’s not standing watch over everyone, rattling chains, or having tea with the right religion group every Sunday in secrecy. God lives in the imagination, built on a fantasy created by man. A fantasy does not cease to be a fantasy simply because many people describe similar fantasies. A fantasy does not cease to be a fantasy just because it makes people feel good, gives them hope or makes their life feel worthwhile.
Santa Clause, Peter from the Family Guy, Pokeman, James Bond, Darth Vader and Superman have been thought up and now have some kind of existence, but they are not real. They exist only in the imaginations of people. For me the same rules apply to God, I see various versions of God, Jesus, Mary and other imaginary characters in the same light as I see Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble.
"God lives in the imagination, built on a fantasy created by man. A fantasy does not cease to be a fantasy simply because many people describe similar fantasies. A fantasy does not cease to be a fantasy just because it makes people feel good, gives them hope or makes their life feel worthwhile."
Quite profound that. Can I quote you?
Sure. I heard it from a friend awhile back and it stuck with me too.
There is no proof or evidence that god exists, then I don't believe in him. I just can't believe in something with no proof!
You have to prove that he does! Aren't you the one who believes? Then you need the proof not us!
You are the one who believes in something that has no proof! None, zero, nada.
And talking about the big bang, you say if it's a decimal bigger or smaller there won't be life or us. Ok you're right, but what about the thought/theory that other big bangs happened in other universes? Do you think they would all be the same size as our universe's big bang? (Personally I don't think so)
Then there are other universes with no life, because the bang was bigger or smaller! And luckily ours was the size that can have life.
You also asked, "who created aliens" in your reply.
Aliens are not ET with super tech spaceships! Any life outside earth is alien, and because it's life then they-if they do exist- evolved in their own life-supporting planet.
God is love? Where is the love in hurricanes? Deseases? Tsunamis? Earthquakes? Fire? Letting massacres happen? Letting children and babies die? Allowing wars? Punishing in hell? And all other evil and tragic things that happen in the world?
It seems to me that you are starting off with a flawed understanding of Atheism. If Atheism was the statement that there 100% is no god, then I would agree that it is illogical. However, this is not what Atheism is. Rather it is a simple lack or a belief in a god or gods. You have the positive belief that there is a god. We simply state that we do not accept your claim.
My guess is that you are trying to paint Agnosticism as the logical standpoint, even though it actually addresses a separate claim from Atheism. Theism/Atheism addresses what we believe. Gnostic/Agnostic addresses what we know/can know. For example, I do not believe that there is a god but also admit that I do not know everything and thus remain open minded. This makes me an Agnostic Atheist.
You also stated that there is proof that Zeus is false... Please do share, because the 100% proving of non-existence is logically impossible. Why do people no longer believe in Zeus though? Because there is no evidence for him and the facts we do have makes him very unlikely. Ironically these same points are why I disbelieve the Christian god and all others.
I think you read Dawkins wrong if you thing he said that evolution disproves God. Evolution does disprove part of the God story in the Bible however.