Explain why you dont beileve in god if your athiest.

[puglover]

As is giving equal weight to both sides. Being an atheist means that you do not believe in God, not that you're ruling out the possibility altogether.

Then I must be misusing the term athiest. I thought the consensus was that an athiest believes God does not exist, and that an agnostic believes God may exist.

I think giving some evidence for why gods exist would be a useful counter-argument to atheism. It's also something that I'm very interested to hear. I doubt the purpose of this thread is for Xanikk to be convinced of something. He wans to hear both sides of the discussion and make a logical conclusion.

All right then. The three principal reasons I believe in God are as follows.
1) The basic sense of morality and altruism that exists in this world
2) The First Cause/First Mover argument
3) The prophecies of the Old Testament fufilled in Jesus' life and death

Right, so if you have shown evidence, real evidence then every one should believe in gods right?

Not necessarily. If I had proof of God's existence, then yes, most of the world would be theist. But all I have is evidence, from which I draw a logical conclusion.

 

[skadistic]

Then I must be misusing the term athiest. I thought the consensus was that an athiest believes God does not exist, and that an agnostic believes God may exist.



All right then. The three principal reasons I believe in God are as follows.
1) The basic sense of morality and altruism that exists in this world
2) The First Cause/First Mover argument
3) The prophecies of the Old Testament fufilled in Jesus' life and death



Not necessarily. If I had proof of God's existence, then yes, most of the world would be theist. But all I have is evidence, from which I draw a logical conclusion.

None of that is evidence you sited.

 

[Gogf]

Then I must be misusing the term athiest. I thought the consensus was that an athiest believes God does not exist, and that an agnostic believes God may exist.

As I said in my first post, I do not believe that God exists, but I'm not going to rule out the possibility. That falls under both your definition of an atheist and an agnostic.

1) The basic sense of morality and altruism that exists in this world

And this could not exist without God?

2) The First Cause/First Mover argument

Which is?

3) The prophecies of the Old Testament fufilled in Jesus' life and death

So you believe God exists because some of the predictions made in the bible are fulfilled... according to the bible?

Not necessarily. If I had proof of God's existence, then yes, most of the world would be theist. But all I have is evidence, from which I draw a logical conclusion.

I don't see any real evidence.

 

[Hotpoint]

2) The First Cause/First Mover argument

The glaring problem with that one is that if everything requires a cause, and something cannot come from nothing, then God falls into the same trap... where did they come from?

Of course if you are willing to accept that something as complex as an all-powerful God can just happen without cause then surely it's actually a lot more reasonable to think something infinitely less complex and improbable could happen, such as a particle can just wink into existance and go boom creating the universe by sheer accident.

 

[bathsheba666]

Are you agnostic about whether the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists? Agnosticism implies that both sides of the argument are equally valid, not that both are possible.

I used to be, but last night I was so drunk my face fell forward into a plate of pasta.

And I finally saw the truth.

 

[El_Machinae]

I see no real need to attack theististic beliefs in this thread. It's a common tactic to shift the burden of proof.

The materialistic explanations for religious faith are extremely strong, AND these explanations can be carried over to other areas and are useful for describing reality.

All right then. The three principal reasons I believe in God are as follows.
1) The basic sense of morality and altruism that exists in this world
2) The First Cause/First Mover argument
3) The prophecies of the Old Testament fufilled in Jesus' life and death

imo; even if these were all 100% valid, there's no reason to assume that the same entity caused all three events

 

[Unser Giftzwerg]

Atheism is not "I do not believe in God." It is, "I believe there is no God." Atheism is, ironically, a faith system itself.

I used to call myself an atheist until I heard Madalyn Murry O'Hare interviewed. She defended the concept of 'no God' just as ardently as any deeply religious person defends the concept of 'God'. It is (IMHO) pretentious preposterous for a human being to claim absolute knowledge of the cosmos, regardless if that claim is that God definitely exists or definitely does not.

 

[El_Machinae]

Atheism is, ironically, a faith system itself.

This is a bit presumptuous: I think each atheist should be allowed to describe whether or not it's a faith system personally. While I often agree that it is (I have faith that Jesus is not God), I can also see that it isn't (I wouldn't say that I have 'faith' that Thor doesn't cause thunder)

 

[skadistic]

I don't believe there is no god, I know there is no god.

 

[Unser Giftzwerg]

You missed my ninja edit, but are you also an agnostic about whether there is an flying, invisible, incorporeal unicorn in the room with you? There are an infinite number of contentions that make no predictions. Are you agnostic about them all because we can't disprove them? Agnosticism implies that both sides of the argument are equally valid, not that both are possible.

This is balderdash. There is no probability test in agnosticism.

Gnostic = 'knowing, knowledge' from the Greek

a- = a prefix indicating negation, the opposite of

Agnostic = Unknowable.

The Agnostic response to "Does God exist?" is some form of "I don't know."

--------------

Theism = Belief in a God (Greek again, I think, but not sure)

a- = a prefix indicating negation, the opposite of

Atheism = The belief no god exists.

The Atheistic response to "Does God exist" is some form of "Nuck fo!"

---------------------

Now you are more gnostic.

 

[Unser Giftzwerg]

This is a bit presumptious: I think each atheist should be allowed to describe whether or not it's a faith system personally. While I often agree that it is (I have faith that Jesus is not God), I can also see that it isn't (I wouldn't say that I have 'faith' that Thor doesn't cause thunder)

Pretension Presumption has nothing to do with it. The words describe different things entirely.

If you jump up and down and insist there is no God, no way, no how, you are certain, listen up ... you are expressing your belief, nothing more. To argue otherwise is to claim omnipotence.

Since we can, I think, agree Man is a creature of finite understanding, one cannot claim knowledge of something which is, by definition, outside those boundries to human understanding. To claim certainty of knowledge beyond these bonds is merely an expression of faith. 'This is what I think lies beyond teh boundries of human knowledge.'

 

[Unser Giftzwerg]

I don't believe there is no god, I know there is no god.

Now HERE we got us an Atheist.

More power to you, if that's what floats your boat.

 

[Xanikk999]

Atheism is not "I do not believe in God." It is, "I believe there is no God." Atheism is, ironically, a faith system itself.

I used to call myself an atheist until I heard Madalyn Murry O'Hare interviewed. She defended the concept of 'no God' just as ardently as any deeply religious person defends the concept of 'God'. It is (IMHO) pretentious preposterous for a human being to claim absolute knowledge of the cosmos, regardless if that claim is that God definitely exists or definitely does not.

The truest argument in the whole thread and i agree.

I know you cant give credibility to god existing but since im agnostic these are my reasons.

What started the big bang?

What is human consionsnous (Its probably just our brain but we do not understand it completely yet).

And thats why im agnostic.

 

[Xanikk999]

I don't believe there is no god, I know there is no god.

Logically, that is impossible and you know it.

As silly as this sounds it is logically impossible to know that a frog sized god that looks like george bush lives in the center of pluto.

But still, logically it is impossible to prove wrong.

 

[Sophie 378]

Imo, there are two types of Atheism:
1. I believe there is no God (active belief in absence)
2. I don't think there is a God (lack of belief either way)

shading to ~ 3 agnosticism: I don't think it's possible to know.

But maybe the same applies to agnosticism. Maybe everyone defines all these things differently ... ... leading to the above debate.

 

[skadistic]

1Logically, that is impossible and you know it.

2As silly as this sounds it is logically impossible to know that a frog sized god that looks like george bush lives in the center of pluto.

3But still, logically it is impossible to prove wrong.

1. No its not imposible. I know there is no god. There never was and never will be. Gods are creations of man. They exsist only as ideas.

2. Logically common sence would tell any rational thinker this is BS.

3. No it isn't. Go to Pluto dig to the centre and see if the god is there. In turn study the history of religion and humanity and you'll see that gods are made up and not real.

 

[Xanikk999]

It is BS but you still cant prove me wrong.

 

[El_Machinae]

I think I'm agnostic on the idea of:
a creator
moral absolutes

I'm atheistic about any god described to me.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

What's that one quote I like so much? It went something like "You're as much of an atheist as I am. You just believe in one more God than I do." Meant to be spoken by an "atheist" to a theist of a particular religion.

 

[Stylesjl]

I prefer to beleive in things that the backing of evidence and not the arbitrary tales of holy men