There isn't, is there? O:
I respect your views. If you ever change your mind, or get curious, maybe read "The Reason for God" though it's kind if a long and tedious read. But then again, it's an argument you might find compelling.
Have a nice day :)
If there is no God, then all that exists is time and chance acting on matter. If this is true then the difference between your thoughts and mine correspond to the difference between shaking up a bottle of Mountain Dew and a bottle of Dr. Pepper. You simply fizz atheistically and I fizz theistically. This means that you do not hold to atheism because it is true , but rather because of a series of chemical reactionsÂ… Â… Morality, tragedy, and sorrow are equally evanescent. They are all empty sensations created by the chemical reactions of the brain, in turn created by too much pizza the night before. If there is no God, then all abstractions are chemical epiphenomena, like swamp gas over fetid water. This means that we have no reason for assigning truth and falsity to the chemical fizz we call reasoning or right and wrong to the irrational reaction we call morality. If no God, mankind is a set of bi-pedal carbon units of mostly water. And nothing else.
I love your quote :) thanks for sharing
i love that!
I'm not exactly best known for being friendly in debates, but if anyone has any genuine, honest questions about atheists or atheism, I'd be more than happy to answer non-judgmentally. I won't respond to flamebait though (an unfortunately large portion of this thread), for the sake of promoting said friendliness.
"I won't respond to flamebait though (an unfortunately large portion of this thread), for the sake of promoting said friendliness."
Umm...care to explain....?
But anyways....stunt, you make it seem like what's said so far hasn't been genuine or honest.....that's just what it seems like. So sorry if it came off that way to you.
I don't really have any specific questions. I'd ask why you're an atheist, but the anticipated response would be "because I don't have a reason to be a theist", burden of proof and all that.
Basically, just share any thoughts you have, if you'd like.
I belive that there is some truth to all religon, and we can learn something from all of them. If people chose only one, and ignore all the rest, they will be missing out. I think it's great that you're listening to other people's opinions.
I agree. Sometimes I look up and wonder if we're just an ant farm in someones closet. I can't tell.
I think everyone tends to have these views. You're not alone. As a Christain, who's struggled with my faith, I know what this feels like.
And I agree all religions tend to share certain views. I believe this is because most religions stem from another one.
People say Athiest are people who dont believ in god. What if i believe in him, but i just dont like him? I believe in all gods and goddesses, some i like, some i dont. But i'm not exactly athiest, and what about the wiccan or peagan cultures? Who says they are bad, or trying to curse people or turn them into frogs?! I know someone who practices wiccan , and they prectice the medicine arts as they call it. Or they meditate and try to astroproject them selves. It's nothing bad really, but this is my opinion, now i'd like to hear yours if you dont mind
Thanks for sharing, I'll get around to this later :)
I just have a few questions before I get to answering you more fully....
Do you mean you accept all gods and goddesses in every single one of their original doctrines? For example, if you believed in both the Christian god, the Hindu gods, the Muslim gods, and then pagan gods and goddesses, do you follow what each religion strictly says about each or do you apply your own interpretation to who you think those gods/goddesses are?
This is an important distinction, so I had to ask XD if you need clarification, I can do that...
Not to be bias, but I agree with Jade. Religions are kind of like relationships. You can't have everyone. It's one or none. Just my opinion.
"--So, a circular argument. Is this even a statement worth being said? Basically here you just say the world exists and we observe it, and that's the reason it exists."
--> Well, basically that implies that was the universe developed for the purpose of being observed and understood by intelligent beings or were the intelligent beings lucky to have existed in such a universe? Which leads to the question that whether we are the masterpiece of this universe or if we're just lucky to be in it. According to the Strong Anthropic Principle, a universe should have all the required elements and properties to have supported life, so we shouldn't be surprised to find ourselves in a so-called perfect universe.
"--God created time, along with space. So when He created it, it began. He didn't need time to create time, that is illogical. Before the universe existed, there was simply God. God was the universe, so to say."
--> Time was formed along with space during the Big Bang. Neither time existed before it nor did space, hence there was no universe - it was a vacuum with ground state energy. That equates there was no time or universe for the creator to create the universe.
"--no offense, but ... says no scientist ever :P"
They're certainly closer than we know.
"--This is assuming science and religion work against each other. There are "physical" reasons for everything that exists in this universe, but what religion does is go beyond that. And anyways, you keep changing your view that time even had a beginning to start with, because later you say: "The possibility that space-time is finite and has no boundary means that it necessarily had no beginning or moment of creation." So you're saying the universe is finite but that it began infinitely?"
--> It began from an infinitely dense point, but the actual quantity of space-time itself is indefinite. But when we talk about an infinite universe, it doesn't need a point of origin, but our universe is changing hence it might have begun from some point. At this point, the standard laws of physics are not applicable and space-time itself breaks down like in the event horizon of a super-massive black hole. And What does religion go beyond?
"But until that happens, you have no more evidence to believe there are as you say i have to believe that we are in fact alone and that there is a God (though there actually is overwhelming evidence of a god). And as I've said about the multi-universes, even if weweren't alone, how does that go to disprove God? There's simply one more thing that God created and whose existence needs to be explained in that way."
--> Perhaps, mainly because it indicates that we aren't the superior beings after all or the apple of anyone's eye. Because human beings often tend to believe that we are the special beings of the cosmos, due to religions across the world stressing on god's special concern for humanity. One of these beliefs, for example, suggested that the Sun and other planets revolve around the Earth and the Earth is the center of the universe. Also, if humans are dependent on a personal god, then does it apply for other alien beings too? Or do they even have such beliefs? Are they made in god's image - or any different? did god take a form too in order to save the particular species? In such cases a specific religion may not relate to them, and I believe no religion won't be applicable as well.
"--Fair enough. Not all with come to believe by faith, as we are called to do. But can I just point out, that there's no more "true" evidence to believe in intelligent life besides here on Earth than by rationalizing that there is a great possibility there would be? The reason scientists have theories is because while they may have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that something is true--no, not even true, but feasible, they simply do not know. All of these alternate theories and realities you are describing take as much faith to believe in as religion. In the end it all comes down to mere thought, so I would not discredit philosophy and theology so completely."
--> However, most theories are based on facts, mathematics, experiments and observation. Otherwise, it creates no line of difference between a theory and a hypothesis. Alternative theories and realities are very likely to exist. For example, the discovery of the Higgs Boson particle which plays a crucial role in super-symmtery is one of the constituents required to prove the M-Theory or String Theory, which once again prognosticates the existence of multiple dimensions, even parallel dimensions.
"--Here you make a case that science is more reliable because it changes and is self-correcting. Well, it is not self-correcting, the method of scientific inquiry is made by people, the facts themselves never change and have always been the same. And I simply do not see how religion being unchanging is an argument against it."
--> Facts do change. Pluto being an example, once it was a fact that it's a planet but now we know it is not. In scientific terms, facts are not absolute truths, because they can be changed and disproven any time. Gravity, undoubtedly, affects everything in the universe but it's effect isn't constant in all regions. Hence, facts are not absolutes and can be changed and corrected. Religion is quite the contrary.
"--I think this last bit is a completely valid point. Science teaches you about things are, religion teaches you about why things are (and even if you did not mean to, you stated this yourself). What we theists are asking you to do is not replace your textbook with the Bible, that would be ludicrous. The Bible is not a book that explains the inner workings of the atom, it is a book that goes beyond that and answers life's toughest questions. It does not provide an alternate answer to how things work, it answers why things work, why we are here."
That seems quite philosophical. But I wonder if we require some major reason to be here other than on person levels. The existence of the human race hasn't done the planet a huge favour, it's often said that if we are eliminated then a variety of life forms can flourish. It's as if the planet and it's millions of other species are at stake because of us, humans. One single species.
"--As for not seeing the purpose or necessity of religion, I see what you mean. That's a personal things, and I'd be lying if I said I've never been there. But it's easy to say you don't need something when you don't understand it. Religion is necessary when you finally realize what you are missing, that you are dying spiritually and need reconciliation with God through Jesus Christ, who humbled himself to come to Earth as a man and share in our suffering. You see, it's not about this world, it's about when we die, was all of this pain worth it? What's the point of living? Sure, what science does is to help you see what's already there, helps you explain the Seen. So what if the day comes where science can fully explain the universe? It's like finally realizing that a rose is red. So what? What have you really uncovered but a truth that you hadn't seen before but that really has no intrinsic value? What religion does is answer the Unseen, and gives meaning to things like science and life."
Science may not prove that god doesn't exist, but it certainly makes god redundant. It may also imply at one point that the afterlife isn't neccessary. The meaning to life can be found through seeking it while living our one life on Earth, that doesn't always require religion as well and hence varies from person to person. You may or may not add god in Science, but that won't make a difference. Because Science can stand on it's two own feet.