[Locked] The reason I'm not an athiest.
0
Miracles. Let me tell you about miracles God shows me. Abortion. Murder. Rape. Genocide. Starvation. You know, hes so forgiving to the pedophiles, fornicators and thieves in our churches. Yet he gives no chances to so many children.
So, in summa, god is not vengeful enough.
As for god being unjust, or admitting evil to happen, even though he is supposedly good and omnipotent - the problem is as old as religion itself, and you may pick among many answers (the strongest argument theodicy has proposed thus far is possibly free will; although the idea of it all being a test obviously also finds its adherents) to this challenge you propose.
0
mibuchiha wrote...
Theories of galaxies are challenged? May I take it that it's general relativity(because gravity plays a large part in forming galaxies) that is challenged? If so, may I know your source? Because this is so interesting to me...
As for refuting something just because it's a theory...well, electromagnetism is also just a theory...try living without that.
Please spare me a lecture about what theories are. Evolution is a theory as well, I don't deny it because so much evidence is stacked on it that it's part of everyday Science. But since we don't have every single species verified, we can't really claim it a law. In hopes of not sounding like a zealot I was explaining how the big bang theory can be not being a mere theory.
Here's what the Hubble telescope found on September 3, 2003. http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2004/07/
You can Google Ultra Deep Field and find it for yourself as well!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgg2tpUVbXQ&feature=related If you want to avoid the read. As for it denying Physics, well you see. It's contains 8 times as many stars as our Milky Way Galaxy and with our current physics theories. It shouldn't exist.
I really disdain arguing in sakes of civil conversations. I really want to say something. But I'll stop here.
0
@mibuchiha - I agree with what you say except i don't think you can say that religions don't try to explore deeper into their relationships with god... how can we say that if we are not followers? and are all the mystories of there god revealed? I think that that is very much aganist a religous belief that you can't explore and discover no futher in your beliefs. And again, does religion even NEED to be proven? isn't that the opposite of religion? Religion is FAITH base right?Plus, i like corny.
And they were praying for that lamp dammit! lol
@Soymilk - you didn't offend me and neither does mibuchiha, I don't claim to be right while others are wrong... I just know that nobody, despite what they think, knows the absolute truth. Therefore i just answered thusly, in a different view. Actually, if you said you had been a devoted follower of any faith, I probably would be arguing another point. In short i am being the devils advocate (no pun intended)
But two things, creationism isn't only based off of religion... that is just something i wanted to through out there, not promoting it just... yeah evolutionist have critics that aren't religous fanatics too... and second is that you say that "he" was tourting and doing all these things... but was it the hand of god or the had of man doing these things? Prayers could have been easing suffering, where millions could of been lost, thousand were instead?
Lets see what else... oh about not being able to test things... that is also a theroy of science. Now I am not saying this is you but, a bunch of people just think scientific therorys are just theories. Be they actually have the power of a law, it is just that they also can't be proven. And no, William Branham did not pay people my god that man could not afford groceries to feed his family, he depended people who donated to him. (He was poor because he did not want to take up an offering plate, he didn't want the people's money) Oh and i don't think that placebos can make limbs grow back ;)
If you want to respond then cool but I must sleep now so I wont respond till the morning.
BTW i could prove i wasn't a millionaire...:(
In conclusion we should have a church of FAKKU! and it shall be a dark brotherhood!
And they were praying for that lamp dammit! lol
@Soymilk - you didn't offend me and neither does mibuchiha, I don't claim to be right while others are wrong... I just know that nobody, despite what they think, knows the absolute truth. Therefore i just answered thusly, in a different view. Actually, if you said you had been a devoted follower of any faith, I probably would be arguing another point. In short i am being the devils advocate (no pun intended)
But two things, creationism isn't only based off of religion... that is just something i wanted to through out there, not promoting it just... yeah evolutionist have critics that aren't religous fanatics too... and second is that you say that "he" was tourting and doing all these things... but was it the hand of god or the had of man doing these things? Prayers could have been easing suffering, where millions could of been lost, thousand were instead?
Lets see what else... oh about not being able to test things... that is also a theroy of science. Now I am not saying this is you but, a bunch of people just think scientific therorys are just theories. Be they actually have the power of a law, it is just that they also can't be proven. And no, William Branham did not pay people my god that man could not afford groceries to feed his family, he depended people who donated to him. (He was poor because he did not want to take up an offering plate, he didn't want the people's money) Oh and i don't think that placebos can make limbs grow back ;)
If you want to respond then cool but I must sleep now so I wont respond till the morning.
BTW i could prove i wasn't a millionaire...:(
In conclusion we should have a church of FAKKU! and it shall be a dark brotherhood!
0
I'm going to sleep now too. I can't think straight anymore.
ARGH RAZAMA! I didn't say you were a millionaire! I was claiming to be one and you had to disprove my claim! lol I had fun, I'm glad I didn't offend. People tend to get offensive when it comes to faith.. So yeah. Good night, if you see me online. I'm busying looking through doujin's!
I'll give you a really really really really really long post in the morning.
ARGH RAZAMA! I didn't say you were a millionaire! I was claiming to be one and you had to disprove my claim! lol I had fun, I'm glad I didn't offend. People tend to get offensive when it comes to faith.. So yeah. Good night, if you see me online. I'm busying looking through doujin's!
I'll give you a really really really really really long post in the morning.
0
The thought that "the universe had to start SOMEWHERE" does not necessitate a sentient Will to bring it forth. Rather, on a more fundamental level, the thought of the Universe having a beginning requires that time as we know it remains a constant even at the initial Big Bang.
But this isn't necessarily true. While our own understanding of time is defined by the continual one-way progression that defines our reality, the Big Bang wasn't just the collapse of energy into particles into hydrogen into helium. The Big Bang was also the unfolding of the four primary dimensions of our reality - the three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension.
As counterintuitive as it seems, there is no such thing as the "beginning" of Universe, not as we commonly understand beginnings. The concept of a causal beginning is wholly dependent on the post-causation expansion of spacetime. As to what triggered the expansion in the first place... well, theories differ. One has it as a matter of interactions between multi-universal "branes," where the energy upon contact with another universe is sufficient to generate a third one. There's also the suggestion that, at the singular "bottom" of a black hole, all energy is effectively infinite in potential - and that the reason why white holes are mathematically valid, yet apparently nonexistent is because that the energy at the bottom of a black hole is exactly sufficient to, say, give birth to a universe outside of our own.
The exotic worlds at the attoscale and macroscale are beautiful enough without something as crudely anthropomorphic as a "God" to influence it. I choose to be atheist not out of spite to religion, whom have their own share of the Truth, and have produced as much beauty has it has ugliness, but because I see the alien beauty of the Universe itself as far greater than anything our species has yet to dream of.
But this isn't necessarily true. While our own understanding of time is defined by the continual one-way progression that defines our reality, the Big Bang wasn't just the collapse of energy into particles into hydrogen into helium. The Big Bang was also the unfolding of the four primary dimensions of our reality - the three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension.
As counterintuitive as it seems, there is no such thing as the "beginning" of Universe, not as we commonly understand beginnings. The concept of a causal beginning is wholly dependent on the post-causation expansion of spacetime. As to what triggered the expansion in the first place... well, theories differ. One has it as a matter of interactions between multi-universal "branes," where the energy upon contact with another universe is sufficient to generate a third one. There's also the suggestion that, at the singular "bottom" of a black hole, all energy is effectively infinite in potential - and that the reason why white holes are mathematically valid, yet apparently nonexistent is because that the energy at the bottom of a black hole is exactly sufficient to, say, give birth to a universe outside of our own.
The exotic worlds at the attoscale and macroscale are beautiful enough without something as crudely anthropomorphic as a "God" to influence it. I choose to be atheist not out of spite to religion, whom have their own share of the Truth, and have produced as much beauty has it has ugliness, but because I see the alien beauty of the Universe itself as far greater than anything our species has yet to dream of.
0
...Science can spell.
I'm sorry. I know I had a good, long rant stashed away for just such an occasion, but I've been up all fucking night, and my brain is shutting down.
I'll say something constructive if I remember later.
Also...
Spellcheck.
I'm sorry. I know I had a good, long rant stashed away for just such an occasion, but I've been up all fucking night, and my brain is shutting down.
I'll say something constructive if I remember later.
Also...
Spellcheck.
0
Coco-tan wrote...
Why Atheists believe there is no God?There are two kinds of atheists.
First "believe there is no god".
Second "don't believe there is god."
I'm in the second group and as for myself, I don't deny existence of some greater, divine (huh?) or whatever power. I just don't believe it exists because the only thing coming from almost every religion these days are restrictions, requirements and some kind of threats to society (I am NOT talking about charity work right now).
Furthermore, why aren't those gods punishing people commiting crimes? I have always thought that fundamental religional texts (Holy Bible, Koran, etc.) are some kind of god law, right? So, why do they overlook it?
I just can't believe someone set up some rules for people to follow, created the whole planet or even universe, comunicated with the people in the past (Noe, prophets...) and then just poof and he's gone and no longer punishing, helping or whatever.
0
There did have to be a start somewhere, but thinking about that will only drive you crazy. Say you're right and the start was God. How did God start? If God created everything, then he just started out of nothing. Peoples usual answer is "He was just always there." Even with God status, that is more unbelievable to me than he is; Everything had to have a beginning. I don't know how man, or even the universe started. I just go with what I feel and believe to be true. I can't say what I do believe, but what I don't believe is that it was God.
0
Instead of trying so hard to find a definite answer to such a question by making shit up or by using an all powerful sky daddy as an explanation, what about this answer: I don't know.
First "believe there is no god".
Second "don't believe there is god."
Which both say there's no god. There's no need for redundancy.
Lamz0r wrote...
First "believe there is no god".
Second "don't believe there is god."
Which both say there's no god. There's no need for redundancy.
0
This thread has been done before, many times. It always derails into a flame war. Stop starting this thread.
0
With these kind of threads a person will post full heartily defending their own belief, while looking at the opposing side with extreme skepticism. People tend to forget that these kind of topics were made not to win an argument but to learn more about what you are skeptical about, providing a thread that will let a reader have open mind of both sides.
Look at it this way, without religion would there be a stable moral system? If science didn't exist, would humans be able to cure diseases?
Look at it this way, without religion would there be a stable moral system? If science didn't exist, would humans be able to cure diseases?
0
without religion would there be a stable moral system
I hope your not implying morality requires religion. There are plenty of atheists who live moral lives. And just because someone is religous doesn't mean they are moral.
0
mibuchiha
Fakku Elder
Yeah, without religion, there will probably no stable moral system...that just signifies how most people really in desperate need of heaven/hell or any other type of reward/punishment to do moral deeds.
0
Black Jesus JC wrote...
without religion would there be a stable moral system
I hope your not implying morality requires religion. There are plenty of atheists who live moral lives. And just because someone is religous doesn't mean they are moral.
I think he means that without religion, morals wouldn't have existed or at least what they are because they are founded in religon.
0
Lamz0r wrote...
Coco-tan wrote...
Why Atheists believe there is no God?There are two kinds of atheists.
First "believe there is no god".
Second "don't believe there is god."
Actually no. That's the distinction between Atheists and Agnostics. Atheists believe there is no higher power influencing the world. Agnostics don't believe in God, but they are open to the concept that there is some higher power, but that neither they nor anyone else understands what it is yet.
0
Look, the truth is this:
We live on a spec that rest upon a dandilion. That dandilion is carried by a giant elephant who happens to be our only hope for salvation.
We live on a spec that rest upon a dandilion. That dandilion is carried by a giant elephant who happens to be our only hope for salvation.
0
i think the amazing atheist on youtube is funny and he makes good points but hes not like some of those Christian youtubers who try to convert every non-christian into one. he never even brought up conversion or what ever you call it when you turn atheist..... food for thought
0
Christians convert people, it is part of their religion. It is just what they do.
Athiest post videos about athiestism on youtube, it is what they do.
BTW anyone remember that south park episode where athiest rule the world but they are all divided up into a bunch of athiest secs? Thats the first thing that comes to my mind when ever I think of athiest, it is just another belief albeit one that doesn't involve a diety.
Athiest post videos about athiestism on youtube, it is what they do.
BTW anyone remember that south park episode where athiest rule the world but they are all divided up into a bunch of athiest secs? Thats the first thing that comes to my mind when ever I think of athiest, it is just another belief albeit one that doesn't involve a diety.