Makes me quite happy.

Why?

I mean come on?

Do you seriously believe in an Invisible Being watching you all the time?

Sounds kind of like Santa Clause to.

People dont be dumb!

There is no "God."

Happy, delusional?
I am proud of you

Don't move this, armsmerchant. I've watched you move other threads because 'the regulars don't like them' and I just want to tell you that I think that's a douche reason.

OP = dumbass. The Judeo-Christian deity does not exist, but that doesn't mean that no god could possibly exist. I am an atheist, but that's by default - there is no convincing evidence for the existence of any god. Is there any reason you are so convinced that there is definitely no god?

There is no "God."

Proof?

I am an atheist, but that's by default

Well, from an Islamic prospective I would argue you against that. The religion of Islam claims that every human being is born into a sinless state, in a natural condition of surrendering one's will in complete submission. Islam also claims that not one single child is born into sin, whether that be original, inherited or derived.

The keywords here are "surrender" or "one who submits"(which in Arabic means Muslim) and "Submission"(which in Arabic means Islam)

This is often why people prefer to use the word "revert", rather than "convert" when one embraces Islam, because it is said that one is reverting back to its original nature(fitrah); the one which they were first created in.

More on fitrah..

Fitrah is associated with Islam and being born as a Muslim. This is when fitrah is viewed in respect to Shahadah – that there is no god but Allah(God) and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah(God) – which makes a person a Muslim. Fitrah, in this sense, is the faculty, which He has created in mankind, of knowing Allah(God). It is the natural constitution with which the child is created in his mother’s womb, whereby he is capable of accepting the religion of truth. similarly naturally knowing right from wrong and good from bad.

To emphasize that last paragraph with a quote from the Prophet Muhammad...

The Prophet Muhammad said, "No babe is born but upon Fitra (as a Muslim). It is his parents who make him a Jew or a Christian or a Polytheist." (Sahih Muslim, Book 033, Number 6426)

OP = dumbass. The Judeo-Christian deity does not exist, but that doesn't mean that no god could possibly exist. I am an atheist, but that's by default - there is no convincing evidence for the existence of any god. Is there any reason you are so convinced that there is definitely no god?

How can you in good conscious claim that the Judeo-Christian god does not exist, but say that other gods could exist? The evidence for the existence of any god, Judeo-Christian or otherwise, is exactly the same: zero.

How can you in good conscious claim that the Judeo-Christian god does not exist, but say that other gods could exist? The evidence for the existence of any god, Judeo-Christian or otherwise, is exactly the same: zero.

Well since you can make a god to be anything you want it to be, one could say that there is an omnipotent god, and through his omnipotence has made himself entirely unobservable to humans in any way.
Now technically, you can't prove this wrong. You can't prove it right in any way either so there's no reason to believe it, but you still can't prove it wrong. So the possibility, however minute it may be, is still there as far as I see it.

Sounds kind of like Santa Clause to.

People dont be dumb!

There is no "God."

I don't know about God but there was a "Santa".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Nicholas

To me, believing in any kind of higher power - whatever it may be, however strong - it's not about evidence or proof. It's about whether or not you simply believe in it. Also, it's about finding your truth. If you feel that you reach your truth knowing there's nothing out there, then fine. If you feel you need for there to be something out there, to guide you or whatever, fine. I don't think one should need proof or evidence for that. I also don't think that there's any one religion or faith that's the one that everyone should follow, because not everyone's truth is necessarily the same, or reached the same way.
If you're happy being Atheist, go you. But, I'm quite happy being Pagan.

Well since you can make a god to be anything you want it to be, one could say that there is an omnipotent god, and through his omnipotence has made himself entirely unobservable to humans in any way.
Now technically, you can't prove this wrong. You can't prove it right in any way either so there's no reason to believe it, but you still can't prove it wrong. So the possibility, however minute it may be, is still there as far as I see it.

Yeah, I understand that, but if you're going to take that logic, wouldn't you have to concede that the Judeo-Christian God could exist too?

God or no god, I still find Old Testament and New Testament scripture very fulfilling. The corporeal presence of a deity is not as important as the morals, ethics and ideas within the scripture; this circumstance applies to any deity based religion.

How can you in good conscious claim that the Judeo-Christian god does not exist, but say that other gods could exist? The evidence for the existence of any god, Judeo-Christian or otherwise, is exactly the same: zero.

Because the Bible is flawed. If the Judeo-Christian god did exist, the Bible would be flawless.

God or no god, I still find Old Testament and New Testament scripture very fulfilling. The corporeal presence of a deity is not as important as the morals, ethics and ideas within the scripture; this circumstance applies to any deity based religion.

Good morality in the Old Testament? Like stoning homosexuals to death? Like murdering atheists? Like condemning somebody to burn in hell for eternity for wearing cotton AND wool in the same garment?

Stop appealing to ignorance

how is being an atheist any different than believing in a god?

there is no definitive proof for either side, so why don't we all just shut the fuck up and stop torturing ourselves with incontrovertible questions?

the reason some of us atheists hate theists is because they're like you, op, and push their beliefs on other people. gtfo acolyte

how is being an atheist any different than believing in a god?

there is no definitive proof for either side, so why don't we all just shut the fuck up and stop torturing ourselves with incontrovertible questions?

Atheism is the default position - it's not positive belief that no god exists, it's just the lack of belief in god.

Atheism is the default position - it's not positive belief that no god exists, it's just the lack of belief in god.

To some people.

Some people who call themselves atheists feel positive that no God exists. Clearly he was talking about this type of person when he said "there is no definitive proof for either side, so why don't we all just shut the fuck up ..." because a person lacking a position would not belong to either side of that debate.

For someone to truly be lacking a position and sitting on the fence, they would have to see an equal reason/lack of reason in both "sides" of the fence. They would not be able to answer "I believe there is probably no God" or "I believe there probably is a God". Only "I don't know". This person would then be called an agnostic.

While some people may think that atheism is simply a lack of a belief in God and not a positive disbelief, I think thats just making the definition unnecessarily vague. If this "atheist" does not positively believe there is no God, are they not agnostic?

Most of the time, its not hard to tell which "atheist" a person means when they describe themselves as an atheist. In my experience, it is usually the positive disbelief. Therefore I think the word "atheist" when used to describe a lack of belief is unnecessary since "agnostic" would be a better description.

Well, from an Islamic prospective I would argue you against that. The religion of Islam claims that every human being is born into a sinless state, in a natural condition of surrendering one's will in complete submission. Islam also claims that not one single child is born into sin, whether that be original, inherited or derived.

The keywords here are "surrender" or "one who submits"(which in Arabic means Muslim) and "Submission"(which in Arabic means Islam)

This is often why people prefer to use the word "revert", rather than "convert" when one embraces Islam, because it is said that one is reverting back to its original nature(fitrah); the one which they were first created in.

More on fitrah..

Fitrah is associated with Islam and being born as a Muslim. This is when fitrah is viewed in respect to Shahadah – that there is no god but Allah(God) and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah(God) – which makes a person a Muslim. Fitrah, in this sense, is the faculty, which He has created in mankind, of knowing Allah(God). It is the natural constitution with which the child is created in his mother’s womb, whereby he is capable of accepting the religion of truth. similarly naturally knowing right from wrong and good from bad.

To emphasize that last paragraph with a quote from the Prophet Muhammad...

Muhammed was a pedo...

External supremacy is an axiom. Whether you treat it as your god or not matters very little; it is whether you want it to be or not. Whether you understand it or not matters very little. Whether you know its name matters very little. Whether you know its rules through observation and experimentation or ancient books of observations, dreams, experiences, prophecies, etc. matters very little.

The point is, you are beneath the supreme. Call it whatever you like, look at it any way you like, treat it any way you like. By examining the results in your life, you will know whether you are correct or not. As its Christian avatar says, "You will know a tree by its fruits."

Well since you can make a god to be anything you want it to be, one could say that there is an omnipotent god, and through his omnipotence has made himself entirely unobservable to humans in any way.
Now technically, you can't prove this wrong. You can't prove it right in any way either so there's no reason to believe it, but you still can't prove it wrong. So the possibility, however minute it may be, is still there as far as I see it.

classical theistic concept of god: omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent each of the three rely on the other three

You can still have faith and not have a religion or believe in any spiritual or divine entity. Religions have caused much more trouble than good being to the people.

Makes me quite happy.

Why?

I mean come on?

Do you seriously believe in an Invisible Being watching you all the time?

Sounds kind of like Santa Clause to.

People dont be dumb!

There is no "God."

All men know that God is. Animosity does not constitute disbelief.

I was about to say that it makes me depressed, but then I realized that I'm just depressed in general and the existence of God doesn't really have anything to do with it. If I believed in God I doubt that I would feel particularly better about anything. I guess I'm just pretty apathetic about the depressing nature of no God.

I was about to say that it makes me depressed, but then I realized that I'm just depressed in general and the existence of God doesn't really have anything to do with it. If I believed in God I doubt that I would feel particularly better about anything. I guess I'm just pretty apathetic about the depressing nature of no God.

at least you don't have to worry about hell if you decide on suicide

You can still have faith and not have a religion or believe in any spiritual or divine entity. Religions have caused much more trouble than good being to the people.

I'd just like to echo this sentiment. I think the belief system of christianity is fantastic. I mean, what could be better? Be nice to other people, do no harm, love your neighbor, realize that you're not the be all and end all of your existence. Thats some pretty good shit right there. Unfortunately the set of people who call themselves christians and the set of people who follow jesus rarely intersect.

I was about to say that it makes me depressed, but then I realized that I'm just depressed in general and the existence of God doesn't really have anything to do with it. If I believed in God I doubt that I would feel particularly better about anything. I guess I'm just pretty apathetic about the depressing nature of no God.

Kykeon, I don't intend condescension in this question, so please rebuke me if it comes across as such:

How can the impact of the decision, 'God is or God isn't', not have anything to do with it? If it is such a minuscule decision in terms of impact, then why is it one of the very few decisions that absolutely every member of humanity must make for himself? Very few make decisions as to where they invest their millions, or whether it is their son or daughter's turn to eat tonight since all they have is a single piece of bread. In both cases, those individual decisions hold little impact on the over all situation: One is still rich, and one child still goes unfed that night.

How can a decision like 'God is or God isn't', (which forces someone to reanalyze their entire personality and their entire way of life) not have anything to do with depression?

Proof?

He doesn't need any. The burden of proof lies on the believers.

He doesn't need any. The burden of proof lies on the believers.

That looked to me to be a specific statement of the non-existence of God.

If he really is saying that there is no possibility of God existing the burden of proof is on him, if he does not believe that there is a God then, whatever, that's cool. But when he made the claim he became responsible for proving it.

Not to mention the claim ,'There is no God' is one that cannot positively be proved (Or at least, I can't think of the way that it could be positively proved. Even an argument could be countered by the omnipotence of God...Possibly.) And is probably a meaningless statement.

If the OP knows that there is no God, it is not up to me to believe him, but for him to show me. If OP knew there was a God, it would not be up to me to believe him, but for him to show me.

Edit: AS an example of the above I could maintain that there are no Platypuses, because I have never seen a platypus, none of my friends have seen a platypus, no-one I know has seen a platypus. I won't be swayed by the experiences of others, I believe them to be mistaken. Every experience I have had tells me that the platypus is an absurd idea.

I have sound and logical reasons to believe that a platypus does not exist, I can list the logic, and give arguments, but it is still up to me to disprove the existence of pltypuses. Especially if someone has a genuine experience of a Platypus, they are not required to believe my statement until I prove to them otherwise

Now, I'm not sure how good an analogy that is, and I'm only really wrtiting it because If I don't I'll forget it, and I can't be arsed to do real work.

Not to mention the claim ,'There is no God' is one that cannot positively be proved (Or at least, I can't think of the way that it could be positively proved. Even an argument could be countered by the omnipotence of God...Possibly.) And is probably a meaningless statement.

I think of it this way. I can't disprove the existence of a god entirely, because there's always the nice little gap in our knowledge for him to exist in. Thankfully, these gaps are forever getting smaller, and hopefully one day they'll be so small that everyone can see that a god can't hide in them. However, it seems pertinent to argue against the claims of theists until this happens so I will simply say that the proofs offered to me for the existence of any notion of a god, be it an abstract theistic principle (eg: omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent etc et-fuckin'-c), or a religious god like Yahweh or Odin, have not convinced me. I'll list in brief why...

The concept of a classically imagined theistic god (all the "omni"s) defeats itself because, as has been illustrated in a lot of depth elsewhere, these qualities contradict each other repeatedly. This happens with the logical implications of these qualities themselves, like omniscience versus omnipotence, omnipotence versus itself etc, and also with the addition of familiar subjects like the problem of evil or the problem of free will.

Religious gods are subject to these problems but also to the burden of proving claims made in their religious traditions, which are like the concept of god itself being eroded as our understanding of the world increases. We now know the world wasn't created in six days and man wasn't made from a clod of dirt now, but the holy texts that posit these claims also claim to be a source of utter and absolute truth, which leaves them looking a bit red-faced really. You can try and counter that by saying "Oh, that part that's just been disproved was meant to be a metaphor! Obviously! Even an atheist should realise that...", but considering that up until that point the verse is treated as absolute fact without question leaves a nasty taste in my mouth. Surely the implication is that such claims are true until a clever atheist comes and disproves it, and then we can always say that it was always true but only for a given value of true.

I'll sum up my own beliefs: god either god doesn't exist, or does if we really do ascribe total power to him with omnipotence and so he can exist but in the face of continued rational and empirical assaults to his existence by repeatedly relying on the "I can do anything! ANYTHING! ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING!" power.

This is gonna sound childish, but ah well.

We shouldn't need to prove there is no God. Why don't you prove there IS a God?

An atheist cannot disprove God because they cannot patch all the holes in their blanket of logic. The largest hole (or maybe the edge along all sides of this "blanket") is the reason that anything exists.

Believing that there is no God, or that there is no reason for existence, is as illogical as believing X (or insert god-name here) is the reason. If there is no reason for existence, that means nothing caused existence. That is illogical. Believing in God or X is without reason, as so that is also illogical.

Someone who claims there is no God is just as burdened with proving that as someone who claims there is a God.

OK then. Let's just say that there may be a god. There may not be. As the above poster said, neiher party can prove their point, so let's just get along. Wow I sound so pacifist.

There is no true god and I am not his prophet.

Like there are many kinds of christians, there are also many kinds of atheists. As not only an atheist but also a "believer" in the nurture side of the nature/nurture debate, this (imo - don't really need to type that.. I can not be objective, no one possibly can..) is all because of childhood "indoctrination". Baptisms or other rituals performed on young children/ even babies, "brand" the child as christian or jewish or whatever and this is simply not possible.. You can't speak of a christian child, he/she does not have all the faculties yet to choose/decide for themselves.
I'm from the "bible-belt" of the Netherlands and I was raised to be a christian. Naturally having somewhat of a rebellious adolescense I claimed to be an atheist, not because I didn't believe in god (which I didn't) but more so for shock value. After a few years I calmed down a bit and still a fervent non-believer, but I had more respect for christians and the way they live their lives. Now - again a few years later - I've not lost respect for people of any kind, but I've lost all respect for religious belief uberhaupt. I used to think that allthough it not being my personal cup of tea, many people draw strenght from their faith. And I thought that christian morality couldn't hurt the world nor people.. I've now changed my mind on that point. Religious belief is bad for people in any shape or form. It discourages individual, critical thinking. Many people (some of them already posted in this thread) simply keep accepting what they've been told as children, and live their lives accordingly. Scientist cannot disprove the existence of god, but we can think about it.. talk about it.. be critical. And anyone open to it will come to the same conclusion.. The idea of a personal god - one so allpowerfull that he can hear our every thought - is highly improbable. And just such a manifestation of early western arrogance its appaling.. At least earlier civilisations had some romance to it.. Explaining nature through polytheism. Many people no longer believe in more than 1 god - atheists just go 1 further..
And on morality.. I said before that I saw a use for christian morality in the world, but not for the cost thereof.. Also I really don't believe christian morality has any more to offer us than natural morality. You even see it in many types of primates.. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.. Its just a facet of natural morality but its universal and inherent to our species as well.. Christian morality is hard enough to decipher anyway, apparently slavery is acceptable, homosexuality of course not, and if you're wife isn't a virgin for the wedding night she should be stoned in front of her parents house.. All really dated thought on morality, but as a christian would say, it is indeed old testament material - and I do agree, the old testament god really is one of the most dispicable, disgusting, hatefull miscreants in all of fiction.. But the new testament including Jesus himself doesn't really offer a higher moral ground that would be fully acceptable for us today either. Just 5 of the 10 commandmends have to do with morality the others are just the early western arrogance projected back on the god they invented.. Usefully of course.. It reminds me of a quote I'll paraphrase, don't know it exactly in English: "religion is a lifestyle for the sheeplike masses, rediculous to the intellectuals and usefull to those in power.".
And also for the sceptics.. Evolution is a fact, natural selection is a fact, social darwinism is a (deplorable) fact.. I've always liked the quote: "the funniest evidence for evolution is that religion evolves.."

cheers,
Mental

lol a invisible guy watching you that has nothing to do about what god is god is not a man first of all its a it and it is not watching you it is you its everyone

lol a invisible guy watching you that has nothing to do about what god is god is not a man first of all its a it and it is not watching you it is you its everyone

Someone needs to learn grammar before the Grammar Police come.

lol a invisible guy watching you that has nothing to do about what god is god is not a man first of all its a it and it is not watching you it is you its everyone

wtf are you trying to say?

There's not much hard evidence to support either Christianity or atheism. However, atheism lacks faith.


People will believe what they want to believe.