I have been wondering- Atheism?

[Shellybelly7]

Can you suggest an explanation or a book on it?

If atheist say they do not believe in what they don't see, or things that have not been proven on some level, I say, "Perhaps God is just one of those things that we haven't found proof of yet." Man at one time, in England, used to believe the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. They thought Galileo and Columbus both were crazy. However, they were proven right.

I read somewhere an atheist argument, "People say we should allow for the possibility of the existence of God, since we cannot prove that he does not exist. This is rediculous. This is like saying that we should allow for the possibility of the tooth fairy's existence or unicorns."

Well, I, for one, do consider that these things may exist. Call me crazy. And some have already. It will not hurt to add one or a few more to that list.

I am just curious as to how people could possibly come to the conclusion that there is no way that God could exist. Perhaps my mind is just too closed to ideas other than my own.

What is your opinion?

 

[Willamena]

I am just curious as to how people could possibly come to the conclusion that there is no way that God could exist. Perhaps my mind is just too closed to ideas other than my own.

What is your opinion?

Welcome to the forums.

There many different ways of looking at atheism, and it's been discussed frequently here on the forums. Both theists and atheists hold strong views about the interepretation of the word, but one thing most agree on is that atheism equates to "no belief in God," which is often held to be not the same as "there is no God."

 

[3.14]

problem is there is no way you can explain existing, like what triggered the big bang enz all had to start some time and when in doubt create a god to explain it

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

problem is there is no way you can explain existing, ...

The problem is, saying "God did it" explains absolutely nothing - it has the same informational content as proudly proclaiming "Blurque!"

 

[Hexaqua_David(II)]

problem is there is no way you can explain existing, like what triggered the big bang enz all had to start some time and when in doubt create a god to explain it

Why can't there just be no beginning?

 

[3.14]

ye but it give you a feeling of comfort why do you think god if often portrayed as omnibenivelent.

 

[GadFly]

In my opinion atheist believe the same things theist believe except when it comes to God they do not think these things relate to God. Often it is clear that they come close to saying there is proof there is a God but will not spare that extra breath to say so. It is a matter of what is acceptable as evidence. Atheist like to point to the fact they have never seen God, measured him, or communicated with him and have no objective proof of God. Although they have never done it, they say the universe can be best explained without God.

My opinion is that the universe can best be explained with the concept of God but not the atheist's concept of God or what the atheist say the theist's concept of God is. By defining what God is, the atheist make it possible to disallow any evidence the theist says he finds of God. For example, the atheist do not want to recognize self evident truths which would of necessity come from God. The atheist (humanist) say self evident truths come from man's imagination or from inventions of man's creation. Logic, math, science, morality, free will, freedom, liberty, on and on, all these are man's own imaginations. God, they say, was never here to create any of these self evident and just here things.

If you try to live with these inventions of man rather than self evident facts that God created, there would be no end to chaos both in society and your personal life. There would be no standards of behavior that would change from day to day, punishment for the good of the state, and so forth. Talk about a written book on atheism, check out all the material on communism if you want a view of atheism and its righteousness in action. When you hear from atheist, their arguments always attack the evils that misguided theist have been responsible for in history but they fail to mention the atrociousness displayed by unbelievers, when, in fact, evil is probably the possession of any fanatical group be it theist or atheist.

No matter what your religious choice is, the GadFly urges you to pick a middle of the road and responsible God as your object of worship. Choose a religion you can teach your children, teach morality and respect for others, and something that will contribute to the betterment of society.

 

[Random]

Yes, a good book about Atheism is "The Delusion of Disbelief" by former Time correspondent Dr. David Aikman.

 

[Magic Man]

In my opinion atheist believe the same things theist believe except when it comes to God they do not think these things relate to God. Often it is clear that they come close to saying there is proof there is a God but will not spare that extra breath to say so. It is a matter of what is acceptable as evidence. Atheist like to point to the fact they have never seen God, measured him, or communicated with him and have no objective proof of God. Although they have never done it, they say the universe can be best explained without God.

No matter what your religious choice is, the GadFly urges you to pick a middle of the road and responsible God as your object of worship. Choose a religion you can teach your children, teach morality and respect for others, and something that will contribute to the betterment of society.

HOLY CRAP!!! Who are you, and what have yo done with Gadfly!? I would almost fully agree with this! I wouldn't lump atheists together and theists together so much, to say that they all believe the same stuff except for this one thing, but I know what you meant. You do seem to understand, I'm incredulous! Let's see more of this, please.

 

[Magic Man]

Yes, a good book about Atheism is "The Delusion of Disbelief" by former Time correspondent Dr. David Aikman.

Hey, have you read that? I'm reading it now, in fact!

Did you mean this sarcastically, or seriously?

 

[Random]

Did you mean this sarcastically, or seriously?

Both. It offers genuine insight into Atheism, whilst in the context of the thread I recommend it with...:sarcastic

 

[Magic Man]

Both. It offers genuine insight into Atheism, whilst in the context of the thread I recommend it with...:sarcastic

Ah, I agree. I think the author's bias shows through on almost every page, and as long as you remember that this is Atheism seen through the eyes of an angry theist with a bone to pick with atheism, then you'll get the right idea out of it.

I, myself, am getting quite a few laughs out of it.

 

[Valjean]

Atheism (simplified) comes in two varieties:

Strong atheism is a positive assertion that there is no God.

Basic, or weak atheism, is simply non-belief in anything there is no empirical evidence of -- faeries, god, Atlantis, &c. Your basic athiest is perfectly willing to accept God or unicorns as soon as s/he is presented with convincing evidence thereof.

 

[Fluffy]

Heya ShellyBelly and welcome to RF !

"Perhaps God is just one of those things that we haven't found proof of yet."

You'll find two types of atheist:
1) God doesn't exist
2) We don't have enough proof/evidence/reason to be justified in believing in God

I think that the vast majority of atheists fall into the latter category and so this statement is not contrary to the larger part of atheism. Most atheists will probably agree with it.

 

[whereismynotecard]

Can you suggest an explanation or a book on it?

If atheist say they do not believe in what they don't see, or things that have not been proven on some level, I say, "Perhaps God is just one of those things that we haven't found proof of yet." Man at one time, in England, used to believe the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. They thought Galileo and Columbus both were crazy. However, they were proven right.

I read somewhere an atheist argument, "People say we should allow for the possibility of the existence of God, since we cannot prove that he does not exist. This is rediculous. This is like saying that we should allow for the possibility of the tooth fairy's existence or unicorns."

Well, I, for one, do consider that these things may exist. Call me crazy. And some have already. It will not hurt to add one or a few more to that list.

I am just curious as to how people could possibly come to the conclusion that there is no way that God could exist. Perhaps my mind is just too closed to ideas other than my own.

What is your opinion?

You think that's bad... I don't even believe that humans have a purpose. We are all here just for nothing and are just going to die and decay. Woooot!!

 

[Inky]

Heya ShellyBelly and welcome to RF !


You'll find two types of atheist:
1) God doesn't exist
2) We don't have enough proof/evidence/reason to be justified in believing in God

I think that the vast majority of atheists fall into the latter category and so this statement is not contrary to the larger part of atheism. Most atheists will probably agree with it.

This is a very good explanation. If enough empirical data accumulated that suggested an omnipotent being, with a mind and personality and all that, created the universe, most atheists would become theists, I think.

 

[GadFly]

HOLY CRAP!!! Who are you, and what have yo done with Gadfly!? I would almost fully agree with this! I wouldn't lump atheists together and theists together so much, to say that they all believe the same stuff except for this one thing, but I know what you meant. You do seem to understand, I'm incredulous! Let's see more of this, please.

MBall I have read my stuff five times to see what your so pleased with. Let's run a check on the things the GadFly believes so we will know whether or not your joy is for real in that we may have found some common ground.:clap First, there is a standard for moral judgments and actions not based on human invention. Second, there are self evident facts or entities, such as logic, liberty, math, science, physics, gravity. laws of motion, etc. Thirdly, people are born with knowledge and learning is actually remembering what one already knew with the help of experiences.And finally, the Earth really is flat or... was that round..or what.... Anyway, I say God best explains this type of world and you say no to this. Now is that why you are so happy or what?
Please feel free to explain how you differ. Good night old friend.
GadFly

 

[MiChAelThOmPsOn72]

You think that's bad... I don't even believe that humans have a purpose. We are all here just for nothing and are just going to die and decay. Woooot!!

Maybe our purpose is to die and decay.

 

[whereismynotecard]

Maybe our purpose is to die and decay.

That doesn't sound like a very good purpose to me... just something that happens... We are not here to die and decay though... We just so happen to do that on our own.

 

[Tiberius]

If atheist say they do not believe in what they don't see, or things that have not been proven on some level, I say, "Perhaps God is just one of those things that we haven't found proof of yet." Man at one time, in England, used to believe the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. They thought Galileo and Columbus both were crazy. However, they were proven right.

We don't need to search the whole universe in order to make sure that a particular thing can't exist. I don't need to count every single number all the way to infinity to know there are no even prime numbers greater than two.

The problem is, saying "God did it" explains absolutely nothing - it has the same informational content as proudly proclaiming "Blurque!"

I call that the "Smurf problem". Remember that cartoon? They'd use the word "Smurf" in place of a real word, leading to sentences like "That's a smurfy idea" or "You'll need to hit it right in the smurf."

However, using "smurf" as a general purpose word that can mean everything means that the following sentence makes perfect sense:

"Smurf smurf, smurf smurf smurf smurf."

Of course, we can get no meaning from it, despite it being gramattically correct. Just goes to show that an explanation that covers everything really tells us nothing.