On Religions and Atheism. How do you justify it?

imagine a more basic social human wihtout the fear of god, hell and retribution. Smart cunning and wihtout boundarys or penelty, murder theif respect you name it does not exist to him.

The idea of religion gave them peace and respect for the (common sense now) laws.

Humans are greedy, sneaky and clever creatures, the best for the race overtook the hard task of looking after ones self and family after we became intelligent enough to realise we could do more working like a massive hive. We have done amazing things as a result and none of it through spiritual forfillment for the most part.

We have free time and luxurys, common sense and strict law keep us from relapsing into animal instinct.

This is how many athiests see it, god at no piont made an impact other than to scare the uneducated man into common community law, which we now take for granted.

The time for religion and worship is over, science has shown us how to take charge and not pray.

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
Though since you take no stance on this, you would take no stance on other concepts that have no evidence as well(like unicorns, Bigfoot, space monkeys, Pokemon, ect), am i right in assuming that?

I would say that they don't exist on earth today because we would have proof that they exist. I would say I have no way of knowing if they exist (with other names I am sure) in other worlds that we have no way of ever exploring.

I would say it seems logical to assume they don't exist because we have no evidence that they do exist but at the same time I would say that there is a chance that they do exist because we have no proof that they don't exist elsewhere in the universe.

I would think that if you concede that God may exist than you are much like me though that would not make you an atheist, at least by the definition of the word. Lets not get caught up in labels though, that is were assuptions start creeping in.

Atheist - One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods
www.thefreedictionary.com...

I havewill continue to concede that God may exist. I just do not think he does.

That is exactly what I am saying. I don't think a God exist either, but I concede that I have no proof of God not existing either.

I would say we are on about the same page. I am just asking theist what makes them so certain their specific religion is right, since they "know" there is a God and I am asking atheist how they "know" that God does not exist.

reply to post by sageofmonticello


agnostic then?

I think many people who claim to be athiest really are agniostic because they have that little voice that says "you dont know anything really it could be true" when they think about the big 'why'.

Originally posted by sageofmonticello

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
Though since you take no stance on this, you would take no stance on other concepts that have no evidence as well(like unicorns, Bigfoot, space monkeys, Pokemon, ect), am i right in assuming that?

I would say that they don't exist on earth today because we would have proof that they exist. I would say I have no way of knowing if they exist (with other names I am sure) in other worlds that we have no way of ever exploring.

I would say it seems logical to assume they don't exist because we have no evidence that they do exist but at the same time I would say that there is a chance that they do exist because we have no proof that they don't exist elsewhere in the universe.

I would think that if you concede that God may exist than you are much like me though that would not make you an atheist, at least by the definition of the word. Lets not get caught up in labels though, that is were assuptions start creeping in.

Atheist - One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods
www.thefreedictionary.com...

I havewill continue to concede that God may exist. I just do not think he does.

That is exactly what I am saying. I don't think a God exist either, but I concede that I have no proof of God not existing either.

I would say we are on about the same page. I am just asking theist what makes them so certain their specific religion is right, since they "know" there is a God and I am asking atheist how they "know" that God does not exist.

edit on 9-9-2011 by sageofmonticello because: (no reason given)

I fit the definition of atheist...

Atheist's are dishonest agnostic's.

Theist's are agnostic's that seek God for meaning in their lives.



To add a little more flavour:


"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning. . ."

C.S. Lewis

reply to post by TsukiLunar


Ok, that is fine, I am not here to tell you what you are or are not. It would just seem logical for me to assume you are actually agnostic if you concede that a god may exist as you stated. I am not too concerned about labels though. It does not seem logical to me that one can both concede that a god may exist while also denying the existence of God but maybe to you it is logical. Just my opinion but we all know what opinions are worth.

Originally posted by sageofmonticello
reply to post by TsukiLunar

 

Ok, that is fine, I am not here to tell you what you are or are not. It would just seem logical for me to assume you are actually agnostic if you concede that a god may exist as you stated. I am not too concerned about labels though. It does not seem logical to me that one can both concede that a god may exist while also denying the existence of God but maybe to you it is logical. Just my opinion but we all know what opinions are worth.

Explain why that is illogical and ill consider reconsidering the atheist thing.

Thank you for the open minded question. I have a lot of friends on both ends of the spectrum, and i greatly enjoy discussing different view points.

I am Atheist.

I believe that there is a scientific explanation for anything and everything. Just because we don't know the answer to something doesn't mean there isn't an answer. The is a natural, explainable reason for the way everything behaves, from a single atom, to a galaxy.

To me not knowing the answers to all questions is a beautiful thing. Poking, prodding, dissecting, asking questions, and learning are what make us great.

When i was still in school one of my friends was in to the Young Life program. It is basically a christian youth program. I went with him a few times because i wanted to know more about what all they did. Some of what they were talking about got me thinking, so privately i asked one of the leaders a question. "If God made humans, then who made God?" The guy stared at me for bit and finally responded with "That's just a question you don't ask"

I still cant believe that was the answer i got. How can there be a question you don't ask? In my my the only stupid questions are the ones you don't ask.

I believe there is a scientific explanation for anything and everything. And this does not leave room for a god, multiple gods, or anything of the sort. Sure there could very well be beings far more advanced, and far more powerful, but that does not make them gods, just powerful and advanced.

atheiest mindset = god doesnt exist so DO WHAT YOU THINK IS BEST FOR US IN LIFE
theist mindset = god/s do exist so do what pleases him/her/them

now, people are saying that there is no proof either way and that we should ignore what other people think of our beleives and just DO WHAT WE THINK IS BEST FOR US IN LIFE.

so athiests and people 'on the fence' both think you should do what you want, thats 2/3. good enought for me, im just going to do what makes me happy instead of worrying what a higher power might think

reply to post by TsukiLunar


OK, I think it is self evident. Please just remember, I am not here to tell you what you are or aren't, I only made that statement because it seemed evident to me from your response. Anyhow, you requested for me to show my work, in a manner of speaking, so here it is.

Just the atheist definition again, so this is all in one place.

Atheist-
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

www.thefreedictionary.com...

Deny-
1. To declare untrue; contradict.
2. To refuse to believe; reject.
3. To refuse to recognize or acknowledge; disavow.

www.thefreedictionary.com...

With that in mind, what I said was

It does not seem logical to me that one can both concede that a god may exist while also denying the existence of God

Now to deny that a God exist, means to declare God untrue, to refuse to believe God exist, to refuse or acknowledge the existence of God.

Now to concede means

Concede - 1. To acknowledge, often reluctantly, as being true, just, or proper; admit.
2. To yield or grant (a privilege or right, for example)
www.thefreedictionary.com...

So to concede God may exist means that you acknowledge, however reluctantly, that God may exist.

So, what is illogical to me...

How can one both refuse or acknowledge the existence of God (to Deny) and at the same time, acknowledge, however reluctantly, that God may exist.(to concede).

To Deny that God exist is to not concede that God does exist.

Now I am not saying that a person without a label, can't both deny the existence of God while conceding that a God might exist. That is exactly how I feel, TBH.

I am just saying if one calls themselves an Atheist, which means " denies the existence of God" they can not be an atheist if they also concede that a god may exist. To concede is to not deny.

I also said

It would just seem logical for me to assume you are actually agnostic

I say this because agnostic means

Agnostic - a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
or
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

www.thefreedictionary.com...

So I said it would seem logical that you are actually agnostic, if one must be labeled, because when you said

I havewill continue to concede that God may exist. I just do not think he does.

To me this seems to match up better with

One who is skeptical about the existence of God
not
One who denies the existence of God

Just my opinion, as I said though, and what seems logical to me.

reply to post by XplanetX

Creator is spirit, he always existed.

before that you said

I can 'logically' understand an infinite future but not an infinite past.

Do you not see the contradiction? How is it that you don't see an infinite past being possible but then claim god has an infinite past?

Originally posted by xDeadcowx
Thank you for the open minded question. I have a lot of friends on both ends of the spectrum, and i greatly enjoy discussing different view points.

I am Atheist.

I believe that there is a scientific explanation for anything and everything. Just because we don't know the answer to something doesn't mean there isn't an answer. The is a natural, explainable reason for the way everything behaves, from a single atom, to a galaxy.

To me not knowing the answers to all questions is a beautiful thing. Poking, prodding, dissecting, asking questions, and learning are what make us great.

When i was still in school one of my friends was in to the Young Life program. It is basically a christian youth program. I went with him a few times because i wanted to know more about what all they did. Some of what they were talking about got me thinking, so privately i asked one of the leaders a question. "If God made humans, then who made God?" The guy stared at me for bit and finally responded with "That's just a question you don't ask"

I still cant believe that was the answer i got. How can there be a question you don't ask? In my my the only stupid questions are the ones you don't ask.

I believe there is a scientific explanation for anything and everything. And this does not leave room for a god, multiple gods, or anything of the sort. Sure there could very well be beings far more advanced, and far more powerful, but that does not make them gods, just powerful and advanced.

That all makes a lot of sense to me. The one thing I don't quite understand is how you can assert that Science does not leave room for an existence of a God. It would seem to me that Science is simply the observation of natural phenomena. I would say science leaves plenty of room for the existence of a God.

Since science has not yet been able to provide the answer of how the universe became, by that i mean, what pre-dated the Big Bang? Science can not explain what came before the big bang. What was around an hour before the Big Bang, a week before? Science holds no answers to this so can neither prove that a "God" did or didn't have a hand in it, so to speak.

Could you elaborate on what you meant by Science not leaving room for a god? To me it seems as though science leaves room for anything especially since science has yet to find an explanation for everything.

I would agree that it would seem reasonable, just not reasonable beyond a shadow of a doubt. If there is doubt, my experience in science says keep looking for an answer that leaves no doubt and not draw conclusions.

Originally posted by sageofmonticello
reply to post by TsukiLunar

 

OK, I think it is self evident. Please just remember, I am not here to tell you what you are or aren't, I only made that statement because it seemed evident to me from your response. Anyhow, you requested for me to show my work, in a manner of speaking, so here it is.

Just the atheist definition again, so this is all in one place.

Atheist-
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

www.thefreedictionary.com...

Deny-
1. To declare untrue; contradict.
2. To refuse to believe; reject.
3. To refuse to recognize or acknowledge; disavow.

www.thefreedictionary.com...

With that in mind, what I said was

It does not seem logical to me that one can both concede that a god may exist while also denying the existence of God

Now to deny that a God exist, means to declare God untrue, to refuse to believe God exist, to refuse or acknowledge the existence of God.

Now to concede means

Concede - 1. To acknowledge, often reluctantly, as being true, just, or proper; admit.
2. To yield or grant (a privilege or right, for example)
www.thefreedictionary.com...

So to concede God may exist means that you acknowledge, however reluctantly, that God may exist.

So, what is illogical to me...

How can one both refuse or acknowledge the existence of God (to Deny) and at the same time, acknowledge, however reluctantly, that God may exist.(to concede).

To Deny that God exist is to not concede that God does exist.

Now I am not saying that a person without a label, can't both deny the existence of God while conceding that a God might exist. That is exactly how I feel, TBH.

I am just saying if one calls themselves an Atheist, which means " denies the existence of God" they can not be an atheist if they also concede that a god may exist. To concede is to not deny.

I also said

It would just seem logical for me to assume you are actually agnostic

I say this because agnostic means

Agnostic - a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
or
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

www.thefreedictionary.com...

So I said it would seem logical that you are actually agnostic, if one must be labeled, because when you said

I havewill continue to concede that God may exist. I just do not think he does.

To me this seems to match up better with

One who is skeptical about the existence of God
not
One who denies the existence of God

Just my opinion, as I said though, and what seems logical to me.

edit on 10-9-2011 by sageofmonticello because: (no reason given)

Nope your logic doesn't pan out. Why would i believe in God if there is no evidence? There is either belief and disbelief in my opinion. After all, when hearing about something how can i not take a stance on whether or not it is true? Do you really think that the only viable position is no stance? Which seems weird to me because that would mean you yourself are hearing about ridiculous claims and not doing any critical thinking at all about them? Agnosticism is a cop-out, you have to lean to one side or the other, that's is just how the human mind works. When we examine a claim we HAVE to come to conclusions about it.Humans would not have survived this long without doing so.

If you are not coming to conclusions about things then it is more likely you are a machine or perhaps an Integrated Data Entity.

You may think you are being open minded in claiming you don't go one way or the other. But if that is what you are trying to come across as then i have news for you. Being open minded is not about being on both sides or in the middle. Its about examining claims and not outright rejecting them. I have examined these claims. I have done critical thinking about them. I have come to the conclusion they are probably not true. How is coming too a rational and reasonable conclusion illogical?

More than that, how is not coming to conclusions logical?

reply to post by TsukiLunar


You seemed to have ignored my response to you and simply decided to reply in a fashion which assumes much about me that is not true. Oh well.

I am not claiming to be open minded. That is not what this is about, it is about the face value of my OP.

I never said you believe in God.

You talk about belief or dis-belief. I don't ask anyone to believe anything, I simply ask why they believe something. I then ask them to show their work on how they came to that decision. I then ask if there is any logic to it.

I simply find no merit in the atheist argument nor the theist argument.

Nope, i am not a machine or a Integrated Data Entity. But thanks. Is your argument that a human must decide one ridiculous un-provable thing or the other un-provable thing/ That sounds like nonsense.

I am actually examining claims and not rejecting any of them, though not accepting them on blind faith. I am seeking proof or what others have thought justifies their beliefs.

Sorry, my logic pans out just fine. Maybe you need to re-read it.

How is coming to a conclusion logical when nothing is proven? Coming to a conclusion without evidence is not logical.

Yes, I do think that the only logical position is no stance, I think every other stance ignores that they have no evidence to back up their claims. that is why i started this thread, because it seems odd to me that others do not come to this conclusion since they have no evidence. How can you come to a conclusion without evidence?

Sorry if I struck a nerve maybe? I don't know why you have responded in this way?

Originally posted by sageofmonticello
reply to post by TsukiLunar

 

You seemed to have ignored my response to you and simply decided to reply in a fashion which assumes much about me that is not true. Oh well.

Then you should have cleared up whatever I said. That really is the point. You just come off as wanting to seem like you are open minded. Thats usually why these threads start up.

DP

reply to post by TsukiLunar


Just did with my edit

Thanks

I am actually very closed minded on the subject, if you haven't noticed. I am asking other people what they think, not because i want to make some decision but because I have made a decision and am curious how others justify making a decision that i can find no point of fact in.

Anyhow, I am not here to validate or invalidate anyone's opinion of me. I actually could care less. I am only asking people what they have to justify a position that is not based on any hard facts.

Any assumptions you are making on me are false. I actually resent it quite a bit as you take the conversation from being productive and intelligent to a state of ridiculousness and spin. If you can't accept my words on face value, without adding your own assumptions on my motives than we really have nothing to talk about and i have little time for your ridiculous diversion.

ETA:

anyhow, I am anything but open-minded. i think that the theist are wrong for "knowing" there is a god and I think that the Atheist are wrong for "knowing" there is not a God. I am saying it is sane to say "I don't know" because there is no evidence to support either claim. That is very closed mined. The way I see it, everyone that disagrees with me is wrong in some way.

So I admit I am closed minded, the opposite of your assumption of what i want people to perceive me as. Can we have an intelligent discussion now or not?

Originally posted by sageofmonticello
reply to post by TsukiLunar

 

Just did with my edit

Thanks

I am actually very closed minded on the subject, if you haven't noticed. I am asking other people what they think, not because i want to make some decision but because I have made a decision and am curious how others justify making a decision that i can find no point of fact in.

Anyhow, I am not here to validate or invalidate anyone's opinion of me. I actually could care less. I am only asking people what they have to justify a position that is not based on any hard facts.

Any assumptions you are making on me are false. I actually resent it quite a bit as you take the conversation from being productive and intelligent to a state of ridiculousness and spin. If you can't accept my words on face value, without adding your own assumptions on my motives than we really have nothing to talk about and i have little time for your ridiculous diversion.

edit on 10-9-2011 by sageofmonticello because: (no reason given)

I am sorry you feel this way. I did not 'spin' anything. If you asking why i have no evidence that God does not exist, then i will tell you there is no evidence of non-existence. You cant prove a negative.

Clarify what is the ridiculous diversion as well. Did i throw up a smoke screen? When did the discussion stop being intelligent?

I also don't need anyone to validate my opinion.

And no, your logic did not pan out. I clarified why in a previous post.

Originally posted by DaveNorris
atheiest mindset = god doesnt exist so DO WHAT YOU THINK IS BEST FOR US IN LIFE
theist mindset = god/s do exist so do what pleases him/her/them

now, people are saying that there is no proof either way and that we should ignore what other people think of our beleives and just DO WHAT WE THINK IS BEST FOR US IN LIFE.

so athiests and people 'on the fence' both think you should do what you want, thats 2/3. good enought for me, im just going to do what makes me happy instead of worrying what a higher power might think

Originally posted by DaveNorris

Originally posted by DaveNorris
atheiest mindset = god doesnt exist so DO WHAT YOU THINK IS BEST FOR US IN LIFE
theist mindset = god/s do exist so do what pleases him/her/them

now, people are saying that there is no proof either way and that we should ignore what other people think of our beleives and just DO WHAT WE THINK IS BEST FOR US IN LIFE.

so athiests and people 'on the fence' both think you should do what you want, thats 2/3. good enought for me, im just going to do what makes me happy instead of worrying what a higher power might think

I agree DaveNorris. Its your life, not Gods.