Is the Concept of God Necessary To Explain Anything?

[logician]

You know there is a difference between KNOWING and BELIEVING. Agnosticism says we don't KNOW and Gnosticism says we CAN KNOW. Faith is still part of knowing, knowing that your part of a plan and having faith in that plan. Atheism does not exist its called Strong Agnosticism or a strong view that the existence of (a) God(s) is very unlikely, but again by definition ATHEISM is Disbelief in a God. Any religion found by faith as its main doctrine is what is called weak agnosticism or the weak view that the existence of (a) Gods(s) is unlikely. Either way Atheism or Faith-Based religion is two sides of the same coin called Agnosticism to what degree is what defines a secularist from a fundamentalist and everything in between.

This simply isn't true. Atheism merely claims that no evidence of any credible kind has come forth that proves there is a god, it's not some faith that a god does not exist.

 

[rojse]

So, using your logic, Rush Limbaugh's rise in rhetoric clearly indicates that we will have a Republican President? Extremists with agendas don't constitute a "struggle by our species". You may revere these people, but they just want all of us to believe their schlock. Thanks anyway, but my schlock is much more believable.

The rise in many different prominent people supporting atheism is far better evidence than the rise of one man, and the fact that the idea of atheism has become much more publically voiced than previously. We have atheists discussing their beliefs on shows, writing a lot of different books, and so forth. Surely this is evidence of a rise in a more vocal form of atheism?

So is Rush. I don't think that support for these extremists registers more than a eensy weensy tiny fraction of our entire population. Feel free to render my assumption useless with actual figures of their fans compared to the global population.

I don't know who Rush is. Please use another example.

When you are talking about atheism, are you talking about those that actively claim that they are atheists, those that are merely "practical atheists" in that they do not pray, do not attend Church, and so forth, or those that pretend to be theists to conform to social and family pressures?

This means what? Extremism begets equal and opposite extremism. And how many times must a cannonball fly, before they're for-ever banned?
The Answer my friend is blowin' in the wind!
The Answer is blowin' in the wind!

It sounds like you are trying to write another verse about the futility of such questions. Surely they have no bearing on the subject at hand. Good job in trying to create a strawman!

I don't have a clue what sort of thing that means in regards to my statement.

I stated that the constant bickering and argument between theists on the subject of God is some evidence that it is delusional (your words, I would have been nicer). If it were not, then there would be a strong consensus as to the basic nature of God at least, and we do not have that even. A song quote is not a real reply, since I do not know what song it is, or the significance of it.

Well it's true that many atheists are unwilling to reconsider their own personal ideas and that many theists examine their faith on a daily basis, but don't you think that over-generalizations like this are dangerous? Someone might try and read it opposite of this, and that would truly be laughable!

I would read the opposite of this.

Obviously, there are those that examine their faith, and stay in their religion, or change to a different religion.

However, most people are brought up in religious households, or are taught about religion in their schooling. At best, a household may not be religious, but not explicitly anti-religious. People that become atheists have to consciously reason and reject the ideas of God that they have been taught to become an atheist, so that requires an examination of faith, does it not?

 

[rojse]

It could be argued that these stories are "mythical creations of man".

Painting the roses red is not only futile, but disingenuous. It was said that GOD is a mythical creation of man. This slight of hand redirection does not fool anyone, let alone Jay.

I say that there are some stories in the Bible (theists have said as much) that were made up to illustrate a point, much like a moral story, and that it does not have to be interpreted literally. How do you not see this as mythmaking?

 

[s2a]

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1056724-post180.html

I thought not...

...time for a celebratory cocktail...

Whee!

 

[Godfather89]

Atheism by definition is the belief that there is no God(s). Modern day atheism is basing that on some scientific evidence of what we observe through electrical signals interpreted by our brains. Inevitably we see what we want to our subjectivity gets in the way of the objectivity. So therefore, you believe based on some scientific evidence there is no god, I am not just saying atheism in general its part of the human condition that we see what we want to see.

So what if God is only spirit / energy / something that transcends the physical, you will never be able than to find him, scientifically the only way to find something that most of us feel would exist even if not by our definition is most likely going to be through introspection. And in the words of St. Francis of Assisi "What you are looking for is what is looking."

 

[JamBar85]

I love the fact that nobody replied to my reply

 

[Yerda]

I love the fact that nobody replied to my reply

Aww. Nobody loves you.

 

[Willamena]

I love the fact that nobody replied to my reply

That's actually a good thing. They only reply to things they disagree with.

 

[JamBar85]

Aww. Nobody loves you.

and all i wanted was love

:sad4: