Explain why you dont beileve in god if your athiest.

[Xanikk999]

Im borderline athiest rightnow but agnostic.

Il take the athiest stance and explain why i might not beileve in god.

Everything in the universe has happened naturally with the exception of the big bang, which nobody knows how it started.

And things are becoming easier and easier to explain nowadays so i can see where religion may eventually become a thing of the past.

 

[Gogf]

I don't see any evidence for God's existence. I'm not ruling out the possibility, but I find agnosticism to be something of a cop-out. If there is no evidence for something, then we either look for more evidence or assume it does not exist. There is no evidence that there is an invisible unicorn in the room with me. I don't say that I'm agnostic about whether it exists, I assume that it does not. That's not to say that it doesn't exist, but that it is highly unlikely that it does.

I also don't see how someone can truly "be an atheist." Under the definition that you seem to be using, being an atheist implies that you are sure God does not exist. Considering that the God hypothesis is very good about not making any testable predictions, I don't see how that can be possible.

 

[carlosMM]

borderline atheist?

hrmph!


I do not believe in any god for the same reasons I do not believe in Gandalf, Sauron, Eragon, the spaghetti monster of the radioactive monkey. Although I must say that gods have a much harder time with me than other things that totally lack evidence: the existence of god(s) has been postulated and claimed to be proved to often, and each time it was just another lie, hoax, error or unbacked opinion that I find it hard to remain open-minded. After all, if all those god(s)-believers can't back up their claims, despite trying mightily for so long a time, and in so large numbers.......

 

[skadistic]

The same reason I don't believe in a pegasus or Odin or the Easter bunny or Kali or Posiden or Zeus or Vishnu or .................

Look at gods and the history of religion and its really easy to see how absurd the notion is. As time goes by it seams those who need to believe in gods change why and what it means. Long ago gods represented thunder or the ocean. Was there a god named Thor that controled the thunder? Where is he now? What does control lightning?

Every step science takes foward the signifigence of gods take two back. Its so marginalised today in understandig the universe believers have been reduced to saying " science is how, god is why". All gods are myths and in time fade into just stories like those of Eqypt, the Vikings, the Greeks and the Romans.

I don't believe in gods because I don't need to.

 

[puglover]

I don't understand atheism. If you don't see evidence for God's existence, there's still a chance he exists. Therefore, it seems that agnostics hold to the more logical standpoint.

 

[Gogf]

I don't understand atheism. If you don't see evidence for God's existence, there's still a chance he exists. Therefore, it seems that agnostics hold to the more logical standpoint.

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.

 

[skadistic]

I don't understand atheism. If you don't see evidence for God's existence, there's still a chance he exists. Therefore, it seems that agnostics hold to the more logical standpoint.

Posible and probable are two diffrent things. Any thing is possible but is it likely? The likely hood gods are anything more then made up ideas by man is so slim its virtualy non-exsistant.

 

[puglover]

Are you agnostic about whether or not Thor exists?

I haven't looked everywhere in the universe, so yes, I guess you could say I am a very weak agnostic as to whether or not Thor exists.

Posible and probable are two diffrent things. Any thing is possible but is it likely? The likely hood gods are anything more then made up ideas by man is so slim its virtualy non-exsistant.

While I disagree with the last sentence, I can see how possibility and probability factor into the atheist/agnostic spectrum.

 

[Gogf]

I haven't looked everywhere in the universe, so yes, I guess you could say I am a very weak agnostic as to whether or not Thor exists.

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.

 

[puglover]

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?

Again, if you claim it is real, and I don't, I can still disbelieve your point without ruling out possibility. An athiest would declare it impossible and dismiss it altogether, which is not the logical solution.

 

[skadistic]

I haven't looked everywhere in the universe, so yes, I guess you could say I am a very weak agnostic as to whether or not Thor exists.



While I disagree with the last sentence, I can see how possibility and probability factor into the atheist/agnostic spectrum.

If you disagree tell me why, what evidense do you have that raises the likely hood of gods exsisting? Other then being told they do.

 

[Winner]

No evidence. I don't believe in anything what has not been proven.

 

[skadistic]

Again, if you claim it is real, and I don't, I can still disbelieve your point without ruling out possibility. An athiest would declare it impossible and dismiss it altogether, which is not the logical solution.

Its not logical? But to assume it is of it might be is?

Common sence tells me there is no FSM with noodely apendages.

 

[Gogf]

Again, if you claim it is real, and I don't, I can still disbelieve your point without ruling out possibility. An athiest would declare it impossible and dismiss it altogether, which is not the logical solution.

That's true, but agnosticism implies that both sides of the argument are equally valid. You're not sure which way you want to go on the issue. Yes, pure atheism is illogical, but people use the term to better convey their opinions than to say they are agnostic about everything that cannot be proven.

 

[El_Machinae]

I do not see any evidence of miracles, and it's abundantly obvious that religious people attribute miracles to events that are within probabilistic likelihood. (amazingly, it seems that almost all people are able to find their car keys within 5 minutes, 99% of the time - not just the people who pray).
- there are a great number of religious faiths that claim that their god performs miracles.

With regards to religious experiences, and desire for religious experiences, I am able to find very probable materialistic explanations. These materialistic explanations are able to not only encompass religious experiences, but have greater explanative powers too (which are useful in other areas). I find that the more someone knows about the human brain, the less importance they put on the experience of prayer.

In addition, believers (through prayer) do not move towards consensus when isolated from each other, but move towards individual opinion. There seems to be no 'outside source' that they commonly tap.

Finally, with regards to morality, I am unwilling to assign a 'perfectly moral' status to the putative Creator. While I'm agnostic about whether our universe was created intentionally (I can easily see that going either way), there's very little evidence that the Creator should be admired for their position on morality. There's no logical reason to assign the Creator with the status of 'perfectly moral'.

Edit: I personally find the comparison to the FSM and IPU to be weak; there aren't millions of people who have claimed to be witness to effects from these two. Ares, Odin, Diana, etc. are better examples: why would prayers to Odin receive a response and so would prayers to Jesus? Now, some faiths ascribe a 'deceiver' entity; but this is unnecessary given that we can get responses to other types of mental exercises that we know to be false.

 

[kryszcztov]

(I'm more of an agnostic than anything else.)

They (Christian edition) say that "Happy is he who believes without seeing". Well, I don't want to believe if I can't see, lemme be unhappy then. Or maybe I'm not that unhappy ?...

God(s) is a human offspring, as shown with the cultural evolution of society since long, long ago (a lot more than 8,000 years). The fact is, I don't need him. At all. So why should I have to believe in Him, having to pray, having to go to mass, having to eat fish on Fridays, etc ?... I'm fine without that.

Yes, I can perfectly live without believing in anything divine.

 

[puglover]

If you disagree tell me why, what evidense do you have that raises the likely hood of gods exsisting? Other then being told they do.

I would, as I have in many a thread long past, but the original poster is calling for the reverse.

Its not logical? But to assume it is of it might be is?

Common sence tells me there is no FSM with noodely apendages.

The belief that FSM exists is illogical, but it is also illogical to rule out the possibility altogether.

 

[Captain Planet]

I study history.

 

[Gogf]

I would, as I have in many a thread long past, but the original poster is calling for the reverse.

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.

The belief that FSM exists is illogical, but it is also illogical to rule out the possibility altogether.

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.

 

[skadistic]

I would, as I have in many a thread long past, but the original poster is calling for the reverse. .

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

The belief that FSM exists is illogical, but it is also illogical to rule out the possibility altogether.

It is not illogical to know the FSM doesn't exsist. I know why he was created by man. I know it isn't real just like I know why man created every other god. Ruling out the posibilty all together because the probability is infentesimal is quite logical.