Any atheists on this board?

[Enrique]

Ok the questions is if GOD is for real lolll.

GOD would be real for any body who believes in a higher force (not jesus or mohammed etc).

The term GOD means=higher force,strong force,powerfull force. This accourding to my religios studys, anthropology,logic classes that I have taken, if you don't like this sorry.

Religion, was not created by GOD, it was
created by humans.

And yes, you most believe in evolution if you believe in GOD. Why? Because everything changes and even us because we have to adapt to a new weather system all the time and other things thats call evolution "adaptation" ( but try and explain that to a pastor is impossible).

Remember Charles Darwing believe in GOD. But some people like always twist things around

God can exist in many ways to any body.

The Organized Church is another system of Politics. The Catholic churhc and muslims clerks have so much money that can, give food to all the 3 world countries for many years and plus pay there bills that they have pending.

The Church was created by humans not by GOD.

Thomas Edison confidently declared, "We do not know a millionth of one percent about anything." Nevertheless, given the supposition that you know 1% of everything, is it possible that evidence proving God's existence exists in the 99% of everything you don't know?


Ok just simple if you don't belive in GOD I challange you 2 ask a person who has had anbortion what did they felt after the abortion was done and they will tell you. That they feel like fuk

hit..and that they belive ther is something missing in them, men or woman, why do this people feel like this. When the baby is not even born, and accourding to DOC the baby has no feeling or pain, because he/she has no idea what pain or feeling is.

Well I gues this people feel like shi.. becaue after the experince they have learn that GOD

is for real.. Jus talk to this people you can learn about GOD..more then going to logic or stat class.

I belive that we don't have to blaim GOD for the problems of the earth. I believe we are the ones, we have to blame for the Problems.Because with GOD OR NO GOD we know what's logical,moraly correct and wrong..

My major is Anthropology, and one time at girl friends church the paster said "Anthropology,Biology is evil, It made me very mad, so I got up and got out.

And the paster call me infront of many( 200 )people and ask "gentlemen where are you going" and I told him that he made feel like s

it because Anthro is evil.

I explain to him that thanks to Anthropology Christians and other religions get to learn about there GOD, because we are the ones who look for evidence and rescue the books or confirm the stories that people tell. Otherwize thw world would not know any thing about there GOD's. Yes I left and made the paster look like punk... haahahah

SO yes I belive in GOD but no in religion.

So I guess thats all for me, sorry to all of you if I got out the subject.

 

[BigWorm]

I’ve heard a lot of arguments about the existence of god. Coming form the vantage point that he does not exist, the question I ask is where does organized religion come from? The only conclusions I can come up with is that somebody made it up way back when as a form of social control. Since birth, all the believers have been heavily scripted to the point that they won’t ask why? They have the answer before they do research.
It’s hard to accept the fact that you’re simply a complex formation of carbon. Every body is afraid of death, so the natural tendency is to make believe that your going to go to the happy place. I have an open mind, I am willing to listen to logical arguments, but no one has ever shown me the light. When ever you claim to be an atheist amongst a true Christian, it is immediately followed with that judgmental look that would be less extreme had you claimed to be a rapist. The rapist can confess, but I’m going to hell.
This isn’t meant to piss anybody off, but just curious if someone can offer more logic than just believe.

 

[vegita1220]

Sure, the physics argument I've thrown in a while back. I think that's pretty logical. Science simply can't explain EVERYTHING...for reasons I've also already laid out. it's simply impossible for us to fathom something we literally cannot see...including the universe which is too big to take in.

Look, if you guys want to say individual religions sicken you, that's fine by me. Frankly, the truth is that people often DO corrupt religion. The fight we have now on our hands against "Muslim" (note the parens) is thanks to corruption of a religion. But if you ever took the time to closely analyze every religion, you'd realize that they actually teach good solid values on which our country has been founded.
But I think it is undeniable that there is some sort of higher power out there. Personally, when I look at how miraculously things just seem to work out for me, and how things that DIDN'T work out for me were actually in my best interest(I couldn't apply to the Air Force Academy due to citizenship issues...now I'm SO glad I'm not going there), I can't help but think that something out there really is running things for me and he/it let's me run things every once in a while.

Just a little background though,
I was personally an atheist, even though I went to church. I'd sit through sermons when my parents took me dying to get the hell out go home watch TV, hang out, all the kid stuff. I was the smart alecky little B@stard that thought he knew everything just b/c he was smarter than most of his peers. Eventually, as I kept going though, and really started thinking about things, and learned about how limited my knowledge really was, I've grown to believe in the existence of a God.
And thus ends the sermon.

 

[McNamara]

Well, that's the whole point. Most believers I know (which constitutes most of my friends and family) will say that logic cannot prove anything about God, you just need to have faith. Of course this is a non-answer to those of us without faith. Other friends readily admit they have no good reason to believe in God, except that life after death is a comforting thought. I'm pretty skeptical about that, but if you need that belief to keep you happy, that's fine. I find enough meaning in my finite life without having to believe in something beyond death.

Most logical or scientific arguments for God can be easily debunked using - you guessed it - logic and science. At best such arguments are inconclusive, or they offer "evidence" which is not falsifiable. Thus the people I know who have alot of knowledge in these fields will admit "okay, so I can't prove God using logic or science. I just believe." Hey, I have no problem with that. We'll just agree to disagree.

 

[riley]

Mcnamara - I completely disagree with you saying that "most logical or scientific arguments for God can be easily debunked using - you guessed it - logic and science."

Read C.S. Lewis "Surprised by Joy" and "Mere Christianity", or Os Guinness "Long Journey Home" - all of these argue very logically for the existence of God. If you know anything about Lewis - he was very much against the existence of God - but then after further study he could not deny the existence. I'm not saying everyone is like Lewis - what I'm trying to get at is that you cannot dismiss out of hand the existence of God by simply saying logical or scientific arguments for God can be easily debunked - if that was the case, you wouldn't have Christians.

What is it that you came across that so easily debunks arguments for the existence of God?

The saying "I just believe" is complete crap - that is what is wrong with Christianity today - you have a bunch of people that accept everything on the basis of "faith" so that they fold in two against outside arguments - their faith is torn and never really heals - it is what happened to my sisters when they got to college. God gave us a brain - he did not do this so we could check it at the door before we go about our Christian lives.

 

[Jester]

If someone really wants to build a strong argument against their opposition they should read and study the other sides arguments. What I've noticed with many christians is that they tend to read only material that supports thier beliefs, (i.e. C. S. Lewis). Only by reading and studying opposing arguments can you understand where the other side is coming from and then develope arguments against their premises, not thier conclusions. Many people often fall into the trap of arguing against someones conclussions rather than the premises that led them to the conclusions. For the christians and other religious individuals out there I recommend reading David Humes "Dialoges concerning Natural Religion". This is a good start to examine some of the philisophical arguments against and for a divine being. It examines both cosmological and teleological arguments for the existence of a divine being and provides arguments against them. It also examines whether it is possible that the nature of a divine being could be known.

As concerning my argument about faith I don't believe anyone here has really examined the argument. I'd have to argue against the idea that there are different levels of truth. First, I'd like to know what is meant by this though. Secondly how can faith be above truth? If one knew something to be true they would not need faith to believe that it is true. Faith as it is defined is belief in something in the absence of certainty. So how can faith lead someone to know something is true?

Lastly, the argument, that god exists because there are so many unexplained phenomena in the universe and because humans do not have the capacity to understand everything, is bogus. Why must it follow that a god exists just because we don't know or understand everything? Furthermore, if a divine something does exist, who's to say that there is only one, maybe there are many devine beings that built the universe. When you look at a building do you assume that it was built by one person? No, you immediately assume that many people were needed to make it. So, with something as vast and as complicated as the universe why do you assume that only one god was responsible for it's design? How do you "know" that there is only one god?

 

[jdnew]

We can argue about this all day. Or days as it is going now. But, I GURANTEE that it will not go anywhere. There are many proofs for and againsed God. And I am sure that is the way He would have it. If it were simple to proove the existance of God, how would he be glorified in believers? I have heard many confincing arguements but for me it all boils down to one thing. I believe God exists because He told me He exists. Instead of having to see something or having a proof of something before you belive in it. You have to believe it then you are able to see it. And then you can see how trifle the "proofs" really are.

 

[Jester]

Personally I think this stuff is pretty important. Think about the impact religion has on moral and ethical issues. The morality and ethics most people have is shaped and based on their religious beliefs. I also think it is pretty arrogant to say that something is true just because you believe in it and therefore any arguments for and against are just pointless. Your essentially saying that you just "know" that a god exists and that your religious beliefs are true because you believe them. That doesn't make much sense. Also, you know god exists because he told you he exists? I'm assuming you mean through the bible. Well why do you believe the bible? Probably because it is the "word of God" right. Well then your presupposing a god exists before you even read the bible through which he tells you that he exists. It's just a circular belief system. I'm not trying to disrespect you in any way. I'm just trying to point out some issues with your reasoning.

 

[Brooke]

Jester, this entire forum is a circular argument! I happen to side with Jdnewso because at this point it comes down to personal opinion. For the most part, many of the individuals on here have made very articulate, intelliget, educate arguments. Here's the thing: we're not any closer to an answer. Those who don't believe have science and opinion to underscore their perspective. Those who do believe also have science and opion to underscore theirs. You fault Jdnewso for saying God is true because he believes it is. I don't find this arrogant...I find this unshakeable belief refreshing. Exactly why do I need to read someones book (i.e. David Humes "Dialoges concerning Natural Religion") which you state "examines some of the philisophical arguments against and for a divine being. It examines both cosmological and teleological arguments for the existence of a divine being and provides arguments against them. It also examines whether it is possible that the nature of a divine being could be known". Does this book get one any closer to knowing whether or not God truly exists? The answer, as much as everyone wants to argue this, is NO! The answer in no b/c no one is going to know until they die. That is the bottom line, and no matter how many books you read for or against, will not help solve the mystery. The belief in God is never going to be concretely proved until Rapture (and for many who do not believe, the lack of a second coming).

My thought is this: people on this forum are trying to argue logic and reasoning for an issue that won't become any more right or wrong (according to your beliefs), regardless of the time and "proof" each side provides. Jester, it's unfortunate that you fail to see that in the question of God, it truly is a question of "essentially saying that you just "know" that a god exists and that your religious beliefs are true because you believe them"...because that's exactly what it means to have faith in God (or Allah or whomever). Why does this imply arrogance on behalf of those who feel this way? I'm not aiming this directly at you, so sorry I keep using your name...actually this is aimed to everyone. There are always going to be people, publications, and ever changing science there to sway ones deep-seeded belief system, one way and the other. Because of these things, the subject will always come down to personal faith that you are correct in your beliefs. I realize that I will probably be attacked in the assumption that I too am being arrogant or close-minded, however I assure you this is not the case. I am trying to be more realistic than anything!

 

[McNamara]

So far we've seen versions of both sides of the faith vs. reason debate. Some believers think faith is all they need, other believers want to find logical or scientific reasons for the existence of God. Both sides are valid ways to look at the question. The only thing I have to say to those of the mindset "I believe, therefore God exists," is this: your spiritual experiences are subjective and unique to you. No two people have the same exact ideas about God, even members of the same religious denomination have had different experiences and opinions of God. So it's fairly unproductive to use proof that, for all you know, exists only in your mind. That's why reason and logic are necessary tools if two people are to have a discussion about God - reason and logic provide a common ground for debate.

Logic can be misused though; one can build a logical argument that is flawless in the proof, but it falls apart if the premise is wrong. Take C.S. Lewis. I like Lewis' books. He's very articulate and entertaining, and incredibly intelligent. The only problem with his arguments is that he starts with an assumption that we are expected to take at face value - the premise - and builds his logical argument from there. To begin an investigation of anything that has to do with the universe, and not just abstract thoughts, you need to start with empirical evidence.

One of the arguments for the existence of God that does start with empirical evidence is the Argument from Design: the idea that life is too complicated to have happened without a divine designer. It's often quoted in an attempt to discredit evolution, or to prove why God has to exist in order for there to be life. Richard Dawkins can probably explain things better than I can...

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_18_3.html

Keep up the good posts everybody! I'm enjoying this discussion.

 

[kevin]

one quick note- just as a defense lawyer has the upper hand, athiest also have the upper hand in the argument over God. youre simply believing in a default of non-belief (the unprovable). for the believers to be "right" we have to prove that God exists. while for you to be "right" you need only require that God remain unprovable (which as we've seen here and throughout time to this point, hasnt been possible). talk about a circular argument. you are saying that to believe you have to have imperical scientific proof of something that is unrelated to imperical scientific proof. so i would say your nonbelief, so to speak, is pretty safe for the time being.

as far as people creating religion cause of fear of dying....not sure about that one. personally i think the idea of being consciously aware for eternity (something we cannot comprehend) is pretty frightening. it's actually a little less scary for my to think about being blasted into non-existence, but that's just me.

macnamara: i definitely agree with riley on the point about logic and God. how is it that you so easily disprove things with science. i think we've seen here so far that is absolutely not the case. but i have one point of contention, which is that part of the reason people of "faith" fold under so many arguments is that there is no argument. if somebody says to me prove God exists, i simply cant. that was my whole point about faith and truth- they are not one in the same. do you really only have faith in the truth? there is not one person on this earth who can honestly answer yes to that question. the mere fact that we have faith in something in the future illustrates that. according to chaos theory there is not "truth" in the future because there is no absolute. hence why i say that faith not automatic even if God is proven.

how is faith above truth- because the metaphysical is above the physical (for all you philosophers out there). we're not talking about right or wrong, here. and metaphysical truths are higher than physical truths. youre implying that truth only occurs if it's proven, and someone gave a pretty good example of how that is not the case (proving gravitation only recently in the timeframe of the universe).

still, it's an interesting argument about absolutes and right and wrong. they can only exist if there is a yield to a higher power. as long as there isnt one, nothing we do is right or wrong. and me putting a slug in your head is nothing at all. and your impending anger (well youd be dead, but let's just say for argument that you had the top neurosurgeon in the country) is merely a reaction and not one of justification. seems pretty absurd to me, but certainly not disprovable.

 

[kevin]

"However, all of these "faiths" in other humans can be experimentally verified by other humans or by ourselves. Alot of that kind of faith is supported by experience - i.e., Einstein's equations have proved to be correct in real life many times over, so I accept other conclusions of his even though I don't fully research them."

macnamara, i have to disagree with you on this too. how exactly can you experimentally verify this? how do you know there isnt a great deception going on or some conspiracy....fact is you can't- their is faith involved, regardless of whether it's God or anything else. you may think you KNOW, when in fact you really are basing a lot more than you think on faith. fact is for every fact proven, there is more doubt uncovered, more question take it's place (the whole idea behind "the matrix"). and relativity, etc is still theory and not absolute. maybe you didnt read the paper regarding the light experiment that scientists recently did, where they got light to travel faster than light (ooops, might alter relativity a bit). point is, science doesnt necessarily know even what it thinks it knows.

 

[riley]

Jester, in one of my earlier posts - i stated that C.S. Lewis was right next to Bertrand Russell's essay, "Why I am not a Christian" on my bookshelf - I do look at both sides of the argument. The way I go into it is that I have my set of ideas and beliefs. Each book I read I test against my beliefs - I'm not perfect, so some of these I add to my own, while others I ignore, and sitll others force me to discard my own belief/idea.

On your question, "how can faith lead someone to know something is true?" It can be answered by first examining the answer to the question, "Before Newton defined/discovered gravity, did it still exist?" To assume humans know every truth out there is pretty arrogant. Before Newton defined gravity, everything was just as "heavy" as it was afterward. In the 14th Century, it would take faith to say the world is round. I don't want to attach this argument to the current one, I just wanted to try answering your question.

"Lastly, the argument, that god exists because there are so many unexplained phenomena in the universe and because humans do not have the capacity to understand everything, is bogus. Why must it follow that a god exists just because we don't know or understand everything?"

Completely agree with you on this.

I'll come back to the second part of how do we know there isn't more than one God when I get more sleep...

Just a thought for everyone. Pre-supposing there is a God - and God has the characteristics of God - all knowing, all powerful, all present, etc. - we, as humans, often make God small. We put a limit on what God can do.

Reading this when I'm a bit more awake might not make sense - but it is quite clear to me now.......

 

[jdnew]

Jester, I can see why you would say and feel that way. However, you took my statement the entirely wrong way. I didn't mean that I beleive God exists because I read it in the bible. And no, I don't mean I heard some mysterious voice =). I guess it's something that only people that have been there can understand. And I am not saying that something is true because I believe in it. I am saying that I was not able to see all the things that God revealed himself in till I believed. Yea, it sounds a little weird. I don't really know how to explain it. Hopefully some people out there know what I'm talking about. It gets so frustrating. Ever wonder why believers argue until they are blue in the face yet don't have any real evidence. It's not because we are trying to verify our own religon by makeing others believe. It's just that when something is so obvious to you, you want to help others see it too. I just want other folks to feel as content as I do about not having to worry about this stuff. So I can worry about other things, like geting into BDCP =). It's kinda like that other day I was taking a practice exam for my FAA written, I looked over and saw that my buddy next to me gat one of the questions wrong. Max VFR speed in class B airspace. I tried to get him to change it (I know cheating is bad, but he is a really close friend I would not want to fail the test) We fought forever about that. I knew it was 200 knots, but I didn't have a FAR there and I really couldn't prove it. It was soooooo frustrating. It wasn't till we got the tests back till he saw the truth. Kinda feels like that.

 

[McNamara]

Kevin said:
"you are saying that to believe you have to have imperical scientific proof of something that is unrelated to imperical scientific proof. so i would say your nonbelief, so to speak, is pretty safe for the time being."

Well you're right about my position being more easily defended. The burden of proof, as they say, falls on the one making a positive assertion. I don't positively assert that God doesn't exist, I merely say I lack belief in God. I could be wrong, and I remain open-minded. I don't think believers should feel a need to prove God's existence to anyone but themselves.

Kevin said:
"how is faith above truth- because the metaphysical is above the physical (for all you philosophers out there). we're not talking about right or wrong, here. and metaphysical truths are higher than physical truths. youre implying that truth only occurs if it's proven, and someone gave a pretty good example of how that is not the case (proving gravitation only recently in the timeframe of the universe)."

It's generally accepted that there is no hierarchy that puts metaphysics above physics in terms of absolute truth. The two subjects simply have different standards. To quote Max Tegmark: "the borderline between physics and metaphysics is defined by whether a theory is experimentally testable, not whether it is weird or involves unobservable entities." Empirical science makes predictions which can be falsified. Metaphysics can't do this, so it's really just a mental exercise. I never said truth is only truth once it's proven. Rather, we can only understand truth if it is proven. It's true we exist, but we don't yet understand why, or even if there is a why. Gravitation was true long before Einstein and Newton explained it, but until then we didn't understand the truth of gravity.

Kevin said:
"still, it's an interesting argument about absolutes and right and wrong. they can only exist if there is a yield to a higher power. as long as there isnt one, nothing we do is right or wrong."

That's one theory. I can disprove it pretty easily - I don't believe there is a higher power, but I live a moral life. Why? I choose to; it's to my benefit and the benefit of those around me that I act morally. I don't act morally because I want to get into heaven or avoid hell, I just want to live a good life and help other people. Society as a whole needs ethics to function, and any good ethical system is based on a compromise between societal good and personal liberty. One can base systems of morality around a concept of God, but one can also have a consistent and practical secular values system. The major difference is that a God-based morality says, "do this, because God says so," while a secular moral system says, "do this, because it's in the best interests of humanity." Even the rules can be the same in the two systems, but they have a different basis.

Kevin said:
"how exactly can you experimentally verify this? how do you know there isnt a great deception going on or some conspiracy....fact is you can't- their is faith involved, regardless of whether it's God or anything else."

If I had the time and intelligence, I could look at all the scientific observations and arrive at a conclusion myself. I trust scientists to do this for me because I have a job that keeps me busy, and scientists keep each other honest. That's why every decent theory is only supported by the scientific community after it is published in a peer-reviewed journal, giving other scientists the opportunity to investigate the conclusions of their colleagues independently. Are there controversies? Of course! That's why theories are always being checked and re-checked against new data. I had my faith in Einstein's honesty renewed this weekend when I went scuba diving. Sure enough, our GPS was right on the mark. It wouldn't have been if General Relativity wasn't an accurate theory.

If I recall correctly, the light experiment you refer to is the cause of quantum mechanical properties of photons, but I might be thinking of something else. Quantum mechanics and relativity still haven't been reconciled. Each has proven absolutely true in its domain, but they don't mesh well. I refer you to the GPS example again for relativity, and as for QM, it is the most consistently proven theory in history, thanks to thousands of lab experiments that verify the predictions it makes. We can't yet figure out how relativity and QM fit together though, and that's one of the exciting areas of current physics.