Atheism

[Krogith]

Explain to me please. If everything complex has to have a creator, then surely the creator of the universe (i.e. the MOST COMPLEX THING IN EXISTENCE) must logically also have a creator too right? I mean, something as complex as a superintelligent universe-creator can't just pop out of nothingness for no reason, can it? Something that complex surely must be designed!

this is awsome. Good point. Now heres where you are allowed to decide. Ither A: you decide it came from nothing and your god of your exsistance.
Or B: you except design and Not knowing everything and just humbol your self and except the Driection given to you.

Thing is A will lead no where. B will get the benfit of that vast knoladge and direction and purpose.

A means nothing matters. But B means there more to it. and a chance to live forever following this Awsome Creator. Doing things the right way and most benifical, and haveing a better life.

All God wants is people to draw close to him and aply his teachings and listion to his wise ways. This will lead to a everlasting life of happyness.

[mrdevious]

Science has now advanced enough to have uncovered the foundation level of life. And much to our suprise, scientists have found functional, complex machinery at the molecular level of life. For instance, within living cells there are little molecular "trucks" that carry supplies from one side of the cell to the other. there are tiny molecular "sign posts" that tell these "trucks" to turn left or right. Some cells have molecular "outboard motors" that propel the cells through liquid. In any other Context, when such functional complexity is evident, People would conclude that these things were Designed.

Well, creationists would conclude these things were designed. But, one could also interpret this in a way that cells which had molecular supply transports would be more prone to become dominant. Cells with trucks that work better than others, would become more dominant than the others. and cells that have signs telling them where to stop, would be more efficient and therefor have a better survival rate than those without. and even within the stop-signs, those with stop-signs in the wrong places would die out, leaving only the cells with the stop-signs that work. To me, concluding that it's the work of design speaks of laziness. Rather than explore the cause, rather than accept we may not be able to yet, we attribute it to a designer because we can't come up with an answer right now. This is what I've been trying to get at this whole time, god is just being credited for everything we haven't yet explained. And when we do explain it, we move on to the next thing.

I used to believe you know. Till I was 18 I was firmly convinced there was a god, I prayed to him frequently, I even argued for his existence a few times. But at some point, I suppose I reached some point of mental developement, and I started asking all the questions. I realized that all my logic for supporting god was based on a system where his existence is already assumed, then we interpret the world in a way that matches up to his existence. Eventually though, I started to analyze things in way where I took neutral ground, then examined the evidence to see where it pointed. Never once did it point to god, because it only worked when I interpreted it to match up with god. In which case, I could make up any crazy story and interpret EVERYTHING to match up with my imaginary explanation.

EDIT:

this is awsome. Good point. Now heres where you are allowed to decide. Ither A: you decide it came from nothing and your god of your exsistance.
Or B: you except design and Not knowing everything and just humbol your self and except the Driection given to you.

Thing is A will lead no where. B will get the benfit of that vast knoladge and direction and purpose.

A means nothing matters. But B means there more to it. and a chance to live forever following this Awsome Creator. Doing things the right way and most benifical, and haveing a better life.

All God wants is people to draw close to him and aply his teachings and listion to his wise ways. This will lead to a everlasting life of happyness.

This sounds more like you're believing because it's the nicer idea, not the more logical one.

[Ignatius]

There is no empirical evidence for the existence of God.

People who believe in God do so despite the evidence to the contrary, not because of it.

[Stedric]

Good deeds are good deeds, and atrocities are atrocities. Religion is not behind them, no matter what a person says.

A good person can be any religion, an atheist, a jew, a christian, muslim, anything. Behaviour is not exclusive to a person.

Religion is open to interpretation. An immoral person may interpret religion in order to explain his own actions, but that is only an excuse. Conversely a good person may use religion as a reason to do good things, but at the basic level that person really did a good deed because they are a good person.

I don't believe religion is behind the biggest atrocities of the world, or most destruction. I have issues with organized religion however, and the ignorance that often accompanies it. This is not an absolute.

[mrdevious]

Lets all keep in mind though, nobody here is the "bad guy" really. We can argue on logic and philosophy, but we all think we're doing the right thing. From my point of view, I see an obligation to stop the spread of ignorance and fallable logic, in the hopes of inspiring more to bring this world into an age of reason.
From Krogith's point of view, he feels an obligation to discourage us from turning our backs on the most important aspect of our existence, and the solution to all our troubles. and indeed, if I were so certain of god I would most likely debate just as passionately to save the souls of billions.

[Krogith]

Lets all keep in mind though, nobody here is the "bad guy" really. We can argue on logic and philosophy, but we all think we're doing the right thing. From my point of view, I see an obligation to stop the spread of ignorance and fallable logic, in the hopes of inspiring more to bring this world into an age of reason.
From Krogith's point of view, he feels an obligation to discourage us from turning our backs on the most important aspect of our existence, and the solution to all our troubles. and indeed, if I were so certain of god I would most likely debate just as passionately to save the souls of billions.

awsome
Love to all Humankind.

[Oneironaut]

this is awsome. Good point.

Uhh, I was being sarcastic. But whatever...

Now heres where you are allowed to decide.

No! The truth is the truth. I don't get to decide the truth. If there's no God, there's no God, and believing in one doesn't make it true. If we can't determine whether or not there is a God, and if we are to remain intellectually honest, we have to say "I don't know". And until there is actually some evidence that God exists, I'm going to go as far as to say "most likely not".

[Stedric]

Uhh, I was being sarcastic. But whatever...

No! The truth is the truth. I don't get to decide the truth. If there's no God, there's no God, and believing in one doesn't make it true. If we can't determine whether or not there is a God, and if we are to remain intellectually honest, we have to say "I don't know". And until there is actually some evidence that God exists, I'm going to go as far as to say "most likely not".

You're here, aren't you? There's so much in this universe we don't understand, so while God cannot be proven, neither can God be disproven. Religion is a choice, its called making "a leap of faith" for a reason. Faith is not a logical operation, but I think that is often the beauty of it.

Keep in mind your talking to an atheist/agnostic (yes I can oscillate between the two).

[rebgirl420]

.....is a proud atheist...

[Oneironaut]

You're here, aren't you? There's so much in this universe we don't understand, so while God cannot be proven, neither can God be disproven. Religion is a choice, its called making "a leap of faith" for a reason. Faith is not a logical operation, but I think that is often the beauty of it.

I don't think that's beautiful at all. It's just illogical. It's saying "I don't know, so I'm going to make up an answer and pretend it's true anyways".

Keep in mind your talking to an atheist/agnostic (yes I can oscillate between the two).

They are not mutually exclusive terms. An atheist is someone who does not hold a positive belief in a God. An agnostic is someone who does not claim to know whether God exists or not. An agnostic atheist, such as myself, is simply someone who lacks a positive belief in a God and who does not claim to know whether God exists or not.