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 know at least the 10 commandments imply other Gods ... "You shall have no other Gods before me"
I used this against a theist friend of mine - and she was like ... "Oh, come on! It just means you can't worship other Gods , which are obviously FALSE Gods because there is only ONE God ..."
Then I was like - Why would God care if someone worships an imaginary and fake God? Is he that easily jealous? Wouldn't he just perform a miracle? Why torture people in Hell?
Theist friend: "God works in mysterious ways ... weren't not SUPPOSED to understand him"
The ones who were jealous were the priests who collected "god's" money for him. They made it all up to protect their income stream from competitors.
Try to tell a theist that. LOL. First they will say ... "Ohhhh, it's the Old Testament! I don't believe in that stuff!"
Me: "Why not?"
Theist: " Because it's obviously not real - it shows God to be a total jerk going on mass genocides and raping and stuff - my God is a Loving God - who showed himself through Jesus Christ "
Yeah, he sure showed his true colors in the new testament: He was so mad at us for being just the way he made us that he just had to kill somebody and couldn't even think about forgiving us unless SOMEBODY was made to pay! So, he had a son and killed him just to get the anger out of his system. Yeah, that god is a great guy! Such love!
Adam and Pancakes are now friends.
Wow. So many posts! Where do I start?
I'll start with the M theory. I am not Physicist in any shape or form so I asked physics professor, my stand was that multi verse theory was a fact in the physics community, but he told me its not so at all, there are many theories out there how the universe began and it is all speculation, we do not know how the universe came into existence, we may never know. So I dismiss the M theory untill it gains more strength in the physics community and has a lot more evidence for it.
'My rejection of such an illogical fantasy is therefore not an illogical fallacy in itself. It is merely the application of logical rules towards the huge errors that almost everyone starts with when they begin to argue about this idea.'
You used the word illogical a lot and you never showed me where it is 'illogical' or a 'fantasy' to believe in a God.
Especially now, with some evidence that more than one universe exists we cannot rule our universe being started by some being in another universe. If it is true then that being or group of beings is not a 'God but just a scientist/engineer creator. We (or our descendants) might eventually figure out how to manipulate string theory, worm holes or some other feature in our universe to make a new universe. Do you want to call you great to some power children "Gods" or just really smart people.'
What created these aliens?
'Is any Creator a God in your view?'
Well according to me deffinition, any being who created the universe is God so yes, I guess so.
'There is overwhelming evidence that the Universe started for random or other reasons and we do not need a "Creator" to fill in the gaps of our knowledge.'
If the big bang was a little bigger (by a decimal point) or a little smaller (by a decimal point) we would not exist, galaxies and elements would not exist either. There have to be 20 parameters in place (weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force etc) so if we want to go with statistics, a being who created the universe does make a lot more sense, not saying that it was a God, I guess we will never know.
'OK, I don't have a lot of time right now, but I do want to know why the Christian god and not any other god?'
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.
'1. There is no proof that god does not exist.
2. Therefore god is real.'
I never gave reasons why I believe in God, I do have reasons though. So my logic does not go like that at all.
'But the God in the Bible are a total human fabrication'
You do not know that.
'Regardless of definitions, though, I contend once again that god does not exist. This is a belief, I suppose, in the same sense that I believe it isn't going to rain in my city today. In both cases, there's simply no evidence to support the conclusion, so I can happily go about my day. No one can prove there is a god. No one can prove there is no god.'
However, usually you have some sought of reasons to believe it will rain, you may see big dark clouds heading your way, or you may read a synoptic chart and see a low pressure system is headed your way. There are still reasons why you think it will rain, however, you have no reason not to believe a God exists.
“However, usually you have some sought of reasons to believe it will rain, you may see big dark clouds heading your way, or you may read a synoptic chart and see a low pressure system is headed your way. There are still reasons why you think it will rain, however, you have no reason not to believe a God exists”.
We believe it will rain when we see the dark clouds heading our way. We have no doubt when we get wet. It is called evidence and proof. I have reason not to believe in the existence of a god. It is called lack of evidence, not even a scrap of it, never mind actual proof.
Adam you were never an Atheist. You may have had doubts at some stage – that is all. An assumption on my behalf I know. Please explain how you “somehow or other got your faith back”. Do not confuse faith with the use of logic or reason.
"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.