Isn't it better to be atheists?

[sayak83]

Since you initiated the discussion, and I assume you believe there is no God, the burden of proof is with you. I understand why you think best to not accept it.
Have a great evening !

No. I believe in God. Though different from yours.

 

[Trailblazer]

shmogie said: LOL, no atheist argument can survive two words ¨prove it¨. Thatś the way it has been since the first unbeliever existed.

That is the exact opposite of my understanding. It is the literalist Bible believer who has all the burden of proof still after 2000 years of inaction, while science has made it possible (computers, internet...) for you to say this non-sensical thing about where lies the burden of proof. Science has been the model for, and doing all the work of establishing just what proof is all about and transforming the world year after year in the process.

I agree, although I do not think the Bible believer can prove that God exists.
The Bible is not proof, although it is evidence.
Most nonbelievers want objective proof, but there is no such thing.

I know God exists in my life because of my personal experience. This is not proof for anyone else nor does it need to be. Have you considered that God wants it to be exactly this way for each of us? If it were logical or objective then where would personal choice of faith come into the picture?

I know God exists because of the Revelation of Baha’u’llah. This is not proof for anyone else nor does it need to be. I believe that God wants each of us to look for the evidence for His existence and use our own innate abilities to determine if He exists. If we determine that then that evidence becomes proof -- for us.

What is proof to one person is not proof to another. It is nobody’s job to prove God exists to anyone else since the faith of no man can be conditioned by anyone except himself. We can show people where the evidence room is but they have to walk through it and look at the evidence for themselves.

There is objective evidence of the Revelation of Baha’u’llah and everything that surrounded it but there is no objective proof that Baha’u’llah received a message from God. All we can do is look at the evidence that indicates that His claim was legitimate and make that determination for ourselves. We then make a personal choice and a degree of faith is required since we cannot “see God.”

Some people say I cannot know God exists, I can only believe. That is not true because once one has absolute certitude they know, and proof is not necessary. This is very personal and not something that can be put into words.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes. If you can convince a jury, you are said to have proved your case beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury doesn't even have to correct for that statement to be true, just convinced.

The one doing the convincing could be wrong which is why it is not a good idea to let other people prove things TO YOU, especially when it comes to religious beliefs. It is however fine to gather evidence from other people for purposes of your own investigation.

When a person says, "Prove it to me," he is challenging you to convince him.

The jury has to make a decision one way or another and there are only two choices so they have to choose one or the other.

In the case of God vs. no god, it is not good for one person to convince another what to believe, because then it is not their own decision or their own belief.

Also, a decision does not have to be made about belief… A hung jury is better than a jury who got it wrong. Likewise, an agnostic is better than a believer who got their belief wrong… IMO…

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer said: You cannot say WHY God should prevent evil….

Ooops! I thought that was Captain Obvious: Being All Powerful?

Sorry, that is not a reason. Just because God CAN prevent evil does not mean God SHOULD prevent evil.

All the Evil-- and I do mean ALL-- is and was created by god.

How could it be otherwise? ALL power is god's-- none left over for silly things like free will, or satan or anything else. Like random acts of Evil....

This should be plain enough, but ... *sigh*

No, all the evil is caused by humans.
That should be plain enough... See any God in prison?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The one doing the convincing could be wrong which is why it is not a good idea to let other people prove things TO YOU, especially when it comes to religious beliefs. It is however fine to gather evidence from other people for purposes of your own investigation.

Yes, the one attempting to convince another might be wrong, and yet still succeed. As I indicated earlier, something false can be proved. It's a slightly different approach to the word proof, which generally assumes that proof equates with truth and certitude.

I often challenge a poster who says, "I just proved ..."

"To whom?" I ask. If no minds have been changed, nothing was proved even if the prover was correct and his proof valid.

The proof of Fermat's last theorem is so esoteric that only a handful of people in the world can follow it. How many people did the author f this proof actually prove this theorem to?

Not to me. I accept that he has proven something to others, and accept their judgment that the proof is probably valid, but the math can't convince me of anything if I can't follow the mathematical argument.

Also, a decision does not have to be made about belief… A hung jury is better than a jury who got it wrong. Likewise, an agnostic is better than a believer who got their belief wrong

Agree. When we don't have enough information to decide, we should remain agnostic. Sometimes, we are forced to act, and must choose between what we would choose if we believed that some idea was true, and our choice if we thought it was false when we hold neither of those views.

 

[Woberts]

Assuming that God is real, then being an Atheist is not the better option. Luckily for me, I don't need to worry about that. The Flying Spaghetti Monster will welcome me into the afterlife with open arms....... er, tentacles?

 

[Woberts]

Since you initiated the discussion, and I assume you believe there is no God, the burden of proof is with you. I understand why you think best to not accept it.
Have a great evening !

Actually, the opposite is true. You have the burden of proof. Let me show you your twisted logic. All the clouds are sentient, and secretly control all government. Now prove it.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

... Further, the CS Lewis institute broadcasts lectures, some extremely heavy in logic. ...

Sorry? CS Lewis? The apologizing hack who wrote some of the most illogical material in the history of apologetics/literature?

Sorry, apologetics (or more accurately, apologizing for the errors, illogical claims and blatent falsehoods in the bible) is the exact opposite of logical.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I agree, although I do not think the Bible believer can prove that God exists.
The Bible is not proof, although it is evidence.
Most nonbelievers want objective proof, but there is no such thing.

Evidence of ... what, exactly?

Certainly not evidence of any Divine Beings-- in fact, a very good case can be argued that the bible is evidence there cannot be any Divine Beings --- of any stripe-- simply by existing.

So, yeah, the bible is evidence of something--- just not anything supernatural.

More accurately, the bible is evidence that humans love to control other humans, by any means they can.

From that perspective, the bible has been pretty successful: Look at the number of gullible folk, giving hard-earned cash-money to obvious charlatans and con men... for example, the private-jet owning Joel Osteen. How on earth can anyone think that guy is anything but a con man and an outright thief?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Sorry, that is not a reason. Just because God CAN prevent evil does not mean God SHOULD prevent evil.

No, all the evil is caused by humans.
That should be plain enough... See any God in prison?

So. God is NOT --- repeat NOT all-powerful as previously claimed?

And therefore? The future is indeterminate-- this god does not even know?

Okay... Gotcha. Why call it "god" in that case? It's at best, a demi-god....

See any God in prison?

Oh, absolutely!!! In fact, prisons in the USA, are nearly all Genuine Christians! And the scant few that are not? Muslim.

Atheists in prisons-- are grossly under-represented, point of fact.

Hmmmm.... it seems that prison life is BENEFICIAL to god-belief...!

 

[Milton Platt]

I think that the concept of religion has evolved a lot between the 20th and the 21st century, also thanks to Ecumenism and to Interfaith Discussion (and to RF..lol)
But one wonders: why is atheism on the rise, especially in Europe? I think it's because people have realized that religions are nothing but a "cultural product".
I am also convinced that the term religion comes from Latin res legere...that is, to cultivate a sort of ritualism. The real religion is the personal one, the one you create by yourself by understanding the world. And I think that being atheists help you understand your path,

So I think it's better to be atheists...rather than exploring religions randomly...because they won't give you the answers you seek. Also...I think that changing religion every five seconds vilifies people's spirituality.

It is always better to live your life based on reality confirmed by evidence. There is no such thing as 100% certainty, of course, but one can come close. You seem to have a different definition of religion than is commonly used.
I don't know how being an atheist either prevents or encourages the manner in which you explore religions, if you choose to do so at all, except perhaps to strive for objectivity and base beliefs on what can be demonstrated to be true.

 

[sealchan]

Sorry, but you don;'t understand what proof is. Proof is absolute, proof is irrefutable. Science to this point has not answered any of the major philosophical questions of humanity to the point of being absolute. Science does not decide what proof is. That is like a prosecutor telling the jury what proof is. That is nonsense, both the prosecution and defense submit evidence, the jury decides from an evaluation of the evidence where the proof is.

Interesting angle but all evidence presented before a jury must be decided in a finite amount of time. That is the practical constraint of proof. And as such all proof is always falsifiable in time if some new experience or information comes about that recasts that proof into a new context.

You might say that science, because of the wonderous things it does, makes it qualified to tell me what proof is. That too is nonsense, the jury decides, not they. I am the jury, my decision for me is based upon the equal presentation of two body's of evidence, that I evaluate, and decide what has been proven. It is the same for every human on earth.

Sure and the jury picks up their phones and takes their medicines and otherwise trusts in the truths and recommendations based on scientific law and principles for any number of matters if not philosophical. But how many judgments might be pronounced for practical matters vs philosophical ones? It seems the court system balances both philosophical and practical matters and jurors probably do to in weighing in on the evidence and what it means.

You might say that science has done only right things. That again is nonsense. Nuclear weapons, chemical compounds that in use maim or kill, a whole host of unintended unforeseen consequences prove the lie to that.

Don't worry, I won't say this. Science mainly does amoral things and engineers, let's say, do the good or evil work of putting to specific use what scientists decide. Those engineers are constrained by authorities, etc...

You might say that what science says is proof. More nonsense. Scientific theory is constantly changing, steady state universe/a created universe. global ice age of the 70's/global warming of the 2,000's. eradication of most of humanity by 2000 of the 60's/ most every person having enough to eat today. Scientific actions as being right and their theories as being right have no special history that would give it any special credence above any other witness.

Therefore science has no special standing, nor authority to decide where the the burden of proof lies in answering the questions mankind has about a whole host of history.

I think that this is greatly oversimplifying the nature of truths offered by science. I think you are saying this because you are focusing on science's ambiguous determinations regarding philosophical matters. But look instead to practical matters and the engineering products...can you say that science is then merely vaccillating over time between contradictory opinions? Morally, perhaps, but technologically? I can't see any way to justify such a perspective.

They propose no God exists, I have every right to say prove it. The agnostic has little place in the conversation. There is no evidence to prove "I don't know" other than "I don't know"

I think that I would half agree with you, science, in regards to truth, does not cut the mustard on a whole host of topics of meaning and value to human life, but it is the one source of truth that best exemplifies how proof can operate. By the fact of its constant internal disagreements and their eventual resolution once sufficient evidence is presented, the never-ending courtroom drama of science leaves in its wake a growing body of law-knowledge that is always theoretically able to change but generally remains stable. Typically new insights tend not to contradict previous determinations but qualify them. But if you constrain yourself to look at only the most comprehensive, ultimate and non-practical aspects of science then certainly the picture becomes fuzzy and the jury is still out.

Perhaps the ultimate definition of proof comes not from science but from mathematics. There the rules are paramount and all assumptions must be laid bare.

 

[sealchan]

You disabuse the term logic. It isn´t about a variety of factors that you believes leads to certain conclusions.

Logic is a thought discipline that explores truth based on a series of propositions. A syllogism is a tool of logic. Here are some extremely simple and short syllogisms. Nothing cannot create something, something exists, therefore something created everything. Another. The universe began, everything that begins ends, therefore the universe will end. One you will like. I cannot see God, I can see everything that exists, therefore there is no God. Another. I cannot see everything that exists, I cannot see God, therefore God could exist. This is logic, logical thinking. Syllogismś can go on to be very long .
Please don´t say you are being logical or are using logic when you are supporting your opinion. Logical means using the rules of logic to reach a conclusion , the same as it meant to the ancient Greeks who developed the discipline, as it means today. Until I studied it, I disabused the word as well.

Logic is limited by the accuracy of the axioms upon which its syllogisms/arguments are based. Those axioms are not constructed by logical argument but are accepted among the community of knowers as given "for the sake of argument". The problem is that there are no absolute axioms without contexts which require a community of knowers to agree upon.

So proper logic should identify all givens and those givens should be accepted by all sides prior to any logic being applied. The problem, of course, comes down to the givens and whether they are acceptable. We never, then, get to the logic in these cases and discussions always seem to be "subjective" and "irrational" as a result.

Science has the virtue of providing "steps to reproduce" which anyone can follow (given inclination, time and resources). This establishes a strong epistemological basis for objective truth in its conclusions. But as with any other epistemological system, it too is always needing to check its paradigmatic assumptions against actual experience (evidence) and the community of scientists will gradually come to a consensus if the "steps to reproduce" proof trustworthy.

 

[sealchan]

I agree, although I do not think the Bible believer can prove that God exists.
The Bible is not proof, although it is evidence.
Most nonbelievers want objective proof, but there is no such thing.

I know God exists because of the Revelation of Baha’u’llah. This is not proof for anyone else nor does it need to be. I believe that God wants each of us to look for the evidence for His existence and use our own innate abilities to determine if He exists. If we determine that then that evidence becomes proof -- for us.

What is proof to one person is not proof to another. It is nobody’s job to prove God exists to anyone else since the faith of no man can be conditioned by anyone except himself. We can show people where the evidence room is but they have to walk through it and look at the evidence for themselves.

There is objective evidence of the Revelation of Baha’u’llah and everything that surrounded it but there is no objective proof that Baha’u’llah received a message from God. All we can do is look at the evidence that indicates that His claim was legitimate and make that determination for ourselves. We then make a personal choice and a degree of faith is required since we cannot “see God.”

Some people say I cannot know God exists, I can only believe. That is not true because once one has absolute certitude they know, and proof is not necessary. This is very personal and not something that can be put into words.

Talking about proof requires that we talk about objective vs subjective. I feel that belief is subjective but that subjective is just as important as objective truth. Only the "scope" to use a programming term of subjective truth is much smaller than is the scope of objective truth. But in creating an objective truth we lose personal applicability in many cases. Objective truths "don't care about us" while subjective truths are "all about us".

A useful analogy for me is to consider the special theory of relativity that identifies one's inertial frame of reference as critical for determining the context of the objective measurements of one's position or momentum. Two individuals can have different measurements for the same object or event and yet both be right. Context is built into the system of knowledge. Subjectivity cooperates with objectivity in this case.

This is a tough piece of meat to chew and many, in this scientific age, feel compelled to argue for objectivity all the way rather than in a measured way which seems to me to be what is necessary.

 

[shmogie]

Sorry? CS Lewis? The apologizing hack who wrote some of the most illogical material in the history of apologetics/literature?

Sorry, apologetics (or more accurately, apologizing for the errors, illogical claims and blatent falsehoods in the bible) is the exact opposite of logical.

You wouldn't know what is logical if it bit you on the butt. Ah, you believe C.S Lewis was giving a lecture on logic, do you ? Ignorance and you are becoming more and more synonymous. Keep it up and when anyone sees your nom de plume, the word ignorant will automatically flash into their mind.

C.S.Lewis was a lecturer in English literature at Oxford and and Cambridge University's in England. Do you have a globe you can look at ? Hint, England isn't in America.

As far as I know, he never lectured on logic. Regardless, I couldn't have a video disc of him lecturing on anything before a video camera, since he died long before they were in common use. Are you just challenged by reading simple English ? I understand, get it off your chest, you will feel better. Maybe we collectively could help you find a 9th grade reading course to improve your skills.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Assuming that God is real, then being an Atheist is not the better option. Luckily for me, I don't need to worry about that. The Flying Spaghetti Monster will welcome me into the afterlife with open arms....... er, tentacles?

Noodly appendages. Please get your theology straight

 

[Foxic]

Sorry? CS Lewis? The apologizing hack who wrote some of the most illogical material in the history of apologetics/literature?

Sorry, apologetics (or more accurately, apologizing for the errors, illogical claims and blatent falsehoods in the bible) is the exact opposite of logical.

He was a man who believed in fictional concepts and expanded on those concepts through writing fiction of his own. I've read his stuff; wasn't impressed. Tolkien was better.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL, no atheist argument can survive two words ¨prove it¨. Thatś the way it has been since the first unbeliever existed.

A has been pointed out by others the burden of proof is always upon those making a positive affirmation.

If you want to claim that fairies exist the burden of proof is upon you. Personally I don't believe in fairies.

If you want to claim that Elvis is alive the burden of proof is upon you. Personally I don't believe in Elvis.

If you want to claim that a God exists the burden of proof is upon you. Personally I don't believe in God.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

But one wonders: why is atheism on the rise, especially in Europe? I think it's because people have realized that religions are nothing but a "cultural product".

They are, but the need for some sort of "fandom" still exists. Throw religion out and it will just go to something else. People just generally aren't happy unless there's something to want the harm of others over.

"If you meet the Buddha on the path kill him!"

A Christian sentiment with a similar gist: If your right arm causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away.

Sometimes, religion itself is causing people to sin.

We teach children about Santa Claus, and to be good so they can get presents at Christmas. Even though the fat man is a lie, it works as a tool for driving character until they are able to make more decisions based on a reality they can clearly see. It works as long as you believe it.

Depending on the kid, though, learning the truth can be life-shattering. You are supposed to trust your parents to tell you about reality. I think this is easily avoided by saying we honor Saint Nicholas by pretending to be something like him and helping others, that anyone can be a "Santa". It's more accurate and still gets the job done. Even better, it promotes empathy instead of selfishness, because you aren't focusing on YOUR wants, but what you can do for OTHERS.

The Ark, parting of seas, wooden cross, etc. are nothing to me. They are physical. But religions (orthodoxy) are stuck in the world, without regard to spiritual truth. They eat wafers saying it's Jesus flesh. It's trying to understand the spiritual (Aeon/realm) through physical.

Sure, but if we focus lots of arguments on how it's stupid, we've essentially just "honored" it with more value than it deserves. It's just negative instead of positive. Like, I don't do the crucifixes all over the house thing, but my mother finds comfort in pictures of angels and the like. To me, they are meaningless, but I accept that it's not really worth fussing much over unless there is harm being done. Security blankets don't have to be harmful. It's when you try to smother your neighbor with your security blanket that it's a problem.

I disagree. Religion gives answers, atheism has no answers.

God made atheists ironically to keep theism grounded. Yahweh used to be one of many in a pantheon, all of whom having limited "jurisdictions" and personalities. After many millennia, Yahweh becomes the Only God with Omnimax powers and atheists (and theists not in the Abrahamic group) rightfully note that reality just doesn't seem to go along with the Marty Stu we've turned God into. I think things might settle down if we were to return to pre-Jewish thought, before monotheism and ridiculous over-think messed everything up.

Is God bad because he doesn't want you to gorge yourself to the max on a habitual basis ?

Maybe He shouldn't be promising His chosen ones endless supplies of milk and honey and grapes the size of basketballs? Maybe magic meals shouldn't be a miracle He utilizes. Seems to be a conflicting message, is all I'm saying.

Is he just being mean to grossly obese people ?

Disease can make people obese too, and so can medications treating other things.

No, because he loves you, he is telling you what is best to avoid the natural consequences of your desires.

Smoking is bad for you and look how long George Burns lasted.

From our limited, ego centric perspective it seems it has been going on for an unimaginable amount of time. in the grand scale of things, it is like driving over the only pebble that exists on a road that goes on forever.

Getting shot only takes a few seconds. Still is fatal. Poo-poohing our existence doesn't make God out to be a great guy.

The Bible makes it clear that evil and the resultant brutality and pain exists because of the willful abuse of free will by those who were given this gift.

The bible makes it clear that certain groups are punished because that's what the author wrote and desired.

Consequently, on earth God is allowing the result of willful choices for evil to be fully exposed for being the fallacies they are.

I was rereading Mark for a book I'm writing. What ASTOUNDED me was just how ignorant his Jesus makes God out to look. So many gardening parables and none of them describe a remotely competent gardener.

From Mark 4:

3 “Listen to this! Behold, the sower went out to sow; 4 as he was sowing, some seed fell beside the road, and the birds came and ate it up. 5 Other seed fell on the rocky ground where it did not have much soil; and immediately it sprang up because it had no depth of soil. 6 And after the sun had risen, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away. 7 Other seed fell among the thorns, and the thorns came up and choked it, and it yielded no crop. 8 Other seeds fell into the good soil, and as they grew up and increased, they yielded a crop and produced thirty, sixty, and a hundredfold.” 9 And He was saying, “He who has ears to hear, [a]let him hear.”

Any farmer who throws his seeds everywhere and is shocked at the result needs a new job.

But THIS one slayed me:

26 And He was saying, “The kingdom of God is like a man who casts seed upon the soil; 27 and he goes to bed at night and gets up by day, and the seed sprouts and grows—how, he himself does not know

Emphasis mine. The LORD does NOT know how His creations work. Hmmm.

No, just All-Powerful.

Can't find the only two humans in a small garden.

Can't name nonhumans without delegating to new human.

Can't make a woman using the same recipe He used for man.

Can't raise anyone from the dead who died from pretty serious things (like beheading or stabbing), only vague medical conditions that apparently can resolve with time.

Can't give gays kids. At least science can pull that off in various ways.

Can't rescue POWs Himself. Needs random guys for the job.

Can't defeat chariots of iron. Must be a fairy or something.

Forgets how to forgive people and must delegate to Jesus, who then forgets he can do it because now we can only get it if we believe he died for us.

Slowly and surely disappears from the bible in a fascinating study of a religion's de-evolution of God's presence. Goes from walking with us to speaking from on high to angels to prophets to dead authors claiming to work for prophets.

C.S.Lewis was a lecturer in English literature at Oxford and and Cambridge University's in England.

Harry Potter is more entertaining. JK, not CS, for Oxford lecturer!

 

[shmogie]

A has been pointed out by others the burden of proof is always upon those making a positive affirmation.

If you want to claim that fairies exist the burden of proof is upon you. Personally I don't believe in fairies.

If you want to claim that Elvis is alive the burden of proof is upon you. Personally I don't believe in Elvis.

If you want to claim that a God exists the burden of proof is upon you. Personally I don't believe in God.

You initiated this response, I didn't seek you out, I made no claims to you I want to defend. Therefore, your claim to me that no God exists is yours to prove. I couldn't care less what your opinion is, I didn't solicit it.

I debate theology with theists, not unprovable propositions with trolling rabid atheists.

You say you can't prove a negative, I say you can.

You believe there is no God, I say prove it.

otherwise, buzz off