Life would be easier if God didn’t exist. I’d be able to follow my own hedonistic desires and do what I’d like. But I re examined my faith and realised that God indeed exists.
The prison population is one tenth of one percent atheist despite the proportion of atheists in the unincarcerated population being hundreds of times higher.
Moreso there exists no proof of sky daddys existence, why would I invent something to believe in, that places arbitrary rules upon how I live, just for funsies? If civilization collapsed, and humans had to start over from square 1, we would discover all the same scientific principles, all the same laws of thermodynamics, all the same measurements of our solar system and it’s age. What we wouldn’t do is make up the same BS stories of whatever god you happen to believe in.
This argument always fascinates me because it makes it sound like you’d be a psychopath if you weren’t afraid of the consequences. I have my own internal compass, thanks. People that don’t? I’d rather stay away from them.
Do we all have an internal compass because of the garden of eden, or from believing in Christianity? If it’s just from the garden of eden and doesn’t require belief, then atheists are just as moral as you are and your argument makes no sense.
If a moral compass comes from religious belief, then you are telling on yourself that you only abstain from being a shitty person because you’re afraid of consequences from God.
You know all the stories in the bible existed in other religions before yours? Just with different names and slightly different details here and there. Every religion was made up by people from slightly altered previous religions… it’s, comically enough, just another example of evolution.
All religions are about why people shouldn’t be jerks, but most of us don’t need to believe anyone is watching us to behave. Stories are helpful, but they don’t have to have any “magic” to get their point accross. Just examples of things people don’t like or do like is enough to make it a good guiding story. A god figure is superfluous and unnecessary.
I cannot explain that one TBH. It’s fucking weird for a book to instruct us to sell our daughters. I have no idea why such an obviously immoral work is used as an authority when people value personal autonomy.
You’ve met some pretty dumb athiests then, there are much better and more common arguments than that. Keep in mind there are dumb people everywhere, if you can’t tell them apart, you don’t have the tools to do so.
If you have objectively proven that atheists are wrong, that means that you must have proven that God exists right? I do not think that is possible without God showing himself, and not just to you, but to others too. If these atheists have not seen God, you have in fact, not proven that they are objectively wrong.
Also, there are many arguments that atheists use. For example, some atheists believe that the Bible can not be right because parts of it were written long after the events that they describe (for example gospels written maybe 50 years after Jesus’ death, meaning most if not all eyewitnesses have died).
As a Christian myself, I do not believe you can objectively disprove atheism. And to claim not liking God is the only reason for their beliefs is ignorant, if not worse.
50 years isn’t that much, especially considering Jesus’ disciples were likely His own age, such as Matthew and John. They could have been 20 at the time and easily lived to write their own gospels, being aware of their old age.
Also, most historical figures we know about from that era have writings about them existing several hundred years after their existence. It’s actually an anomaly that accounts of Jesus were written so close to the time, as well as the epistles. It’s almost like God literally came down to earth.
As an avowed agnostic since the 3rd grade, you’re not wrong.
My fundamental problem with atheism is that I don’t believe it’s possible to answer the question of why is there something rather than nothing without acquiescing to the possibility of a higher power.
That being said, my qualms with organized religion are much more severe, so I rarely have reason to bicker with atheists about technicalities.
That logic is flawed. Just because we don’t understand why there is something rather than nothing, there is no logical implication that there could be a higher being. “Coincidence” would seem to be a much more likely reason (until/if we understand why) - much like coincidence being the reason for most (all?) observed miracles
“Coincidence” would seem to be a much more likely reason
How so? How do you define “coincidence” in this context?
Even if “coincidence” is more likely, that doesn’t rule out the possibility of a higher power.
Atheism is the assertion that there is no God, agnosticism is the acknowledgement that we can’t actually prove such an assertion. As an agnostic, I dont necessarily believe that a higher power is likely to exist, I simply know that I am unable to definitively prove otherwise.
If you claim to be an atheist, you should be able to logically demonstrate that a higher power cannot possibly exist. Go ahead.
Atheism is the assertion that there is no God, agnosticism is the acknowledgement that we can’t actually prove such an assertion
Most atheists tend to identify as agnostic atheists. You’re arguing against gnostic atheists, which are few and far between in my experience. The qualifier is usually dropped out of simplicity.
I’m gnostic about the Judeo-Christian god existing, and agnostic about any god existing. I still identify as an atheist.
Fair enough. I guess my understanding of the terminology may be obsolete.
But I’m unsure how you can be gnostic about the Judeo-Christian God existing. Doesn’t that require the exact same amount of faith as actual Christians, just in the opposite direction? I’m not comfortable with claiming certainty of anything in the absence of any logical framework, and thus I do not identify as an atheist.
I do identify as an atheist, and I would say it has nothing to do with some sort of faith in non-existence. I know there is a lot more to be found out about the universe, and as our methods of observation and tools improve so will our understanding of how everything fits together and where it all “came” from. What I dont understand is what would a 2000 year old book’s character have to do with anything? Why would the Abrahamic god enter the picture at all? If you can imagine that there’s some ultimate creative force that is responsible for existence, why would it resemble the “God” in the Bible? It could be something like a “white hole”, spewing matter in to the universe as another interesting but ultimately mundane cosmic feature. It certainly wouldn’t give a shit that you exist, or ever hear prayers, or that people are cruel to each other, and all the other stuff people made up and have been telling each other about God. I acknowledge that we don’t and can’t know everything about how the universe works but I don’t get why that has to leave the back door open to believing in some sapient paranormal omniscient presence floating somewhere in space. The Bible is a work of fiction. There are lots of great lessons to be learned in fiction, and it can be a great comfort and an escape, but it was written and made up by people.
Why wouldn’t it? We have no frame of reference to make a value judgment about what a higher power should or would be like. We simply have no way of knowing.
We do, however, have a framework of references regarding the other natural mysteries humans once ascribed to gods having elegant solutions rooted in the hard sciences. We searched the storm clouds and didn’t find Thor. We’ve dug boreholes and didn’t find Hades. We’ve studied the sun and haven’t found Ra. Human history is chock full of gods and “higher powers” to explain the unknown, and as we learned more about the world the less relevant they became. We learned sacrificing goats to a god does not make it rain, and now understand the natural and mundane systems that do. There’s no reason to believe that the creation of matter or “something from nothing” as you put it is any different.
Because modern morality would reject the idea that an omnipotent being would need to torture someone to death to absolve humanity of the “sin” of acquiring knowledge of good and evil from actions they took prior to understanding the difference between good and evil. Whereas 2000 years ago that concept might have been more palatable.
Or that somehow it is acceptable to torture people for eternity for losing a guessing game you created. We have only 100 years to pick the right answer, should we make everything just and fair so it’s easy to figure out there was a plan? Or give cancer to children?
Not to mention just torturing some dude to win a bet with Satan. Wait, isn’t that a bet with one of the creations that doesn’t have the free will? Isn’t an omnipotent being actually above needing to prove things to the devil?
Either the Bible is a work of fiction embracing the morality of the era it was written in, or it’s perfectly normal for an omnipotent being to create things with free will but flip out and do tortures or mass genocides when the free will is used incorrectly. Can you imagine how you’d perceive people acting out these stories today? “Hey boss, I need the day off, I’m hearing voices telling me to take my child up a mountain to kill him, so I’m going to do that.”
Not at all. There is a huge difference in proving a positive (i.e. that God exists) than prooving a negative (i.e. that God is IMPOSSIBLE).
EXAMPLE:
Could Trump be a lizard alien in a skin suit as some might believe? Absolutely.
Am I gnostic by stating in a matter of fact tone that he isn’t (and thus dependant on “faith” by extension of your argument? Probably not.
Just because someone once made a wild claim about God existing, doesn’t make me require “faith” to call out he obviously made up story with absolutely zero facts to back it as such.
Certainty is a fool’s errand. Everything is ranges of probability. I ultimately can’t prove that everyone on the Internet is not a corgi, but it’s highly unlikely.
I specifically disbelieve the Judeo-Christian god exists because that god is claimed to be all-knowing, all-powerful, and merciful. All three are difficult to reconcile with the suffering we see in the world. If he knew everything and was merciful, but powerless to do anything, that would be different. If he was merciful and powerful, but didn’t know any better, that would be different. If he was powerful and knowledgeable, but didn’t give a shit, that would be different. All three, however, is a different matter.
Could there be some other explanation? Perhaps. There have been pages and pages written on that very subject down through the centuries. I’ve found those explanations to be deeply unsatisfying. It’s more likely that such an entity does not exist.
I haven’t gone through every single god in every single pantheon and measured out their likelihood of existing or not. I merely find the concept of a god to be unnecessary to explain the universe around us, so I’m agnostic about the vast majority of them.
I also fail to understand how that addresses the infinite recursion with gods. I mean if there is something. And that requires a creator. Who created the creator? And who created that creator of the creator? I think I tend towards gnostic atheism. I’m pretty sure that the idea of god is a really stupid answer to that question. But I also know how science and knowledge works. So I technically wouldn’t claim to know, unless someone claim’s it’s a different thing for Russel’s teapot or the flying spaghetti-monster. That’s kind of the benchmark to tell if someone understands what I mean by agnostic atheist.
Atheists. Their argument always boils down to “I don’t want God to exist because I don’t like him”
lol theists are the ones that do this “God exists because my worldview would fall apart and I’d realize I wasted my life on a manipulative fairy tale”
Life would be easier if God didn’t exist. I’d be able to follow my own hedonistic desires and do what I’d like. But I re examined my faith and realised that God indeed exists.
Sounds like you are one of the people that benefits from thinking a god is a real thing. Most of us don’t need something like that to be nice people.
It’s not about being nice people- it’s about the fact we need a Saviour because we aren’t nice people.
deleted by creator
Source?
deleted by creator
Moreso there exists no proof of sky daddys existence, why would I invent something to believe in, that places arbitrary rules upon how I live, just for funsies? If civilization collapsed, and humans had to start over from square 1, we would discover all the same scientific principles, all the same laws of thermodynamics, all the same measurements of our solar system and it’s age. What we wouldn’t do is make up the same BS stories of whatever god you happen to believe in.
If Christianity is man made fake stories, why does it go against all of man’s desires?
This argument always fascinates me because it makes it sound like you’d be a psychopath if you weren’t afraid of the consequences. I have my own internal compass, thanks. People that don’t? I’d rather stay away from them.
Yeah, because of the Garden of Eden. We all do.
Do we all have an internal compass because of the garden of eden, or from believing in Christianity? If it’s just from the garden of eden and doesn’t require belief, then atheists are just as moral as you are and your argument makes no sense.
If a moral compass comes from religious belief, then you are telling on yourself that you only abstain from being a shitty person because you’re afraid of consequences from God.
You know all the stories in the bible existed in other religions before yours? Just with different names and slightly different details here and there. Every religion was made up by people from slightly altered previous religions… it’s, comically enough, just another example of evolution.
All religions are about why people shouldn’t be jerks, but most of us don’t need to believe anyone is watching us to behave. Stories are helpful, but they don’t have to have any “magic” to get their point accross. Just examples of things people don’t like or do like is enough to make it a good guiding story. A god figure is superfluous and unnecessary.
What stories are you referring to? Things like the flood narrative exist around the world because it actually happened.
Christianity isn’t about being a good person- It’s about the fact that we cannot be a good person and how we need a Saviour.
A God figure is necessary to redeem us, and whether or not you think He’s necessary doesn’t make Him any less real.
I cannot explain that one TBH. It’s fucking weird for a book to instruct us to sell our daughters. I have no idea why such an obviously immoral work is used as an authority when people value personal autonomy.
because that’s how they wrote it
Lol this is like saying I don’t want Gandalf to exist because I don’t like Gandalf
You’ve met some pretty dumb athiests then, there are much better and more common arguments than that. Keep in mind there are dumb people everywhere, if you can’t tell them apart, you don’t have the tools to do so.
Like Dawkins and Ehrman? Because they are pretty dumb.
If you have objectively proven that atheists are wrong, that means that you must have proven that God exists right? I do not think that is possible without God showing himself, and not just to you, but to others too. If these atheists have not seen God, you have in fact, not proven that they are objectively wrong.
Also, there are many arguments that atheists use. For example, some atheists believe that the Bible can not be right because parts of it were written long after the events that they describe (for example gospels written maybe 50 years after Jesus’ death, meaning most if not all eyewitnesses have died).
As a Christian myself, I do not believe you can objectively disprove atheism. And to claim not liking God is the only reason for their beliefs is ignorant, if not worse.
God did show Himself as Jesus.
50 years isn’t that much, especially considering Jesus’ disciples were likely His own age, such as Matthew and John. They could have been 20 at the time and easily lived to write their own gospels, being aware of their old age.
Also, most historical figures we know about from that era have writings about them existing several hundred years after their existence. It’s actually an anomaly that accounts of Jesus were written so close to the time, as well as the epistles. It’s almost like God literally came down to earth.
As an avowed agnostic since the 3rd grade, you’re not wrong.
My fundamental problem with atheism is that I don’t believe it’s possible to answer the question of why is there something rather than nothing without acquiescing to the possibility of a higher power.
That being said, my qualms with organized religion are much more severe, so I rarely have reason to bicker with atheists about technicalities.
That logic is flawed. Just because we don’t understand why there is something rather than nothing, there is no logical implication that there could be a higher being. “Coincidence” would seem to be a much more likely reason (until/if we understand why) - much like coincidence being the reason for most (all?) observed miracles
How so? How do you define “coincidence” in this context?
Even if “coincidence” is more likely, that doesn’t rule out the possibility of a higher power.
Atheism is the assertion that there is no God, agnosticism is the acknowledgement that we can’t actually prove such an assertion. As an agnostic, I dont necessarily believe that a higher power is likely to exist, I simply know that I am unable to definitively prove otherwise.
If you claim to be an atheist, you should be able to logically demonstrate that a higher power cannot possibly exist. Go ahead.
Most atheists tend to identify as agnostic atheists. You’re arguing against gnostic atheists, which are few and far between in my experience. The qualifier is usually dropped out of simplicity.
I’m gnostic about the Judeo-Christian god existing, and agnostic about any god existing. I still identify as an atheist.
Fair enough. I guess my understanding of the terminology may be obsolete.
But I’m unsure how you can be gnostic about the Judeo-Christian God existing. Doesn’t that require the exact same amount of faith as actual Christians, just in the opposite direction? I’m not comfortable with claiming certainty of anything in the absence of any logical framework, and thus I do not identify as an atheist.
I do identify as an atheist, and I would say it has nothing to do with some sort of faith in non-existence. I know there is a lot more to be found out about the universe, and as our methods of observation and tools improve so will our understanding of how everything fits together and where it all “came” from. What I dont understand is what would a 2000 year old book’s character have to do with anything? Why would the Abrahamic god enter the picture at all? If you can imagine that there’s some ultimate creative force that is responsible for existence, why would it resemble the “God” in the Bible? It could be something like a “white hole”, spewing matter in to the universe as another interesting but ultimately mundane cosmic feature. It certainly wouldn’t give a shit that you exist, or ever hear prayers, or that people are cruel to each other, and all the other stuff people made up and have been telling each other about God. I acknowledge that we don’t and can’t know everything about how the universe works but I don’t get why that has to leave the back door open to believing in some sapient paranormal omniscient presence floating somewhere in space. The Bible is a work of fiction. There are lots of great lessons to be learned in fiction, and it can be a great comfort and an escape, but it was written and made up by people.
Why wouldn’t it? We have no frame of reference to make a value judgment about what a higher power should or would be like. We simply have no way of knowing.
We do, however, have a framework of references regarding the other natural mysteries humans once ascribed to gods having elegant solutions rooted in the hard sciences. We searched the storm clouds and didn’t find Thor. We’ve dug boreholes and didn’t find Hades. We’ve studied the sun and haven’t found Ra. Human history is chock full of gods and “higher powers” to explain the unknown, and as we learned more about the world the less relevant they became. We learned sacrificing goats to a god does not make it rain, and now understand the natural and mundane systems that do. There’s no reason to believe that the creation of matter or “something from nothing” as you put it is any different.
Because modern morality would reject the idea that an omnipotent being would need to torture someone to death to absolve humanity of the “sin” of acquiring knowledge of good and evil from actions they took prior to understanding the difference between good and evil. Whereas 2000 years ago that concept might have been more palatable.
Or that somehow it is acceptable to torture people for eternity for losing a guessing game you created. We have only 100 years to pick the right answer, should we make everything just and fair so it’s easy to figure out there was a plan? Or give cancer to children?
Not to mention just torturing some dude to win a bet with Satan. Wait, isn’t that a bet with one of the creations that doesn’t have the free will? Isn’t an omnipotent being actually above needing to prove things to the devil?
Either the Bible is a work of fiction embracing the morality of the era it was written in, or it’s perfectly normal for an omnipotent being to create things with free will but flip out and do tortures or mass genocides when the free will is used incorrectly. Can you imagine how you’d perceive people acting out these stories today? “Hey boss, I need the day off, I’m hearing voices telling me to take my child up a mountain to kill him, so I’m going to do that.”
Not at all. There is a huge difference in proving a positive (i.e. that God exists) than prooving a negative (i.e. that God is IMPOSSIBLE).
EXAMPLE: Could Trump be a lizard alien in a skin suit as some might believe? Absolutely. Am I gnostic by stating in a matter of fact tone that he isn’t (and thus dependant on “faith” by extension of your argument? Probably not.
Just because someone once made a wild claim about God existing, doesn’t make me require “faith” to call out he obviously made up story with absolutely zero facts to back it as such.
Trump is a human being who physically exists on Earth.
God is an abstract concept that is beyond human comprehension and exists outside the bounds of time and space.
Making claims about something that you fundamentally don’t understand is a fool’s errand.
Certainty is a fool’s errand. Everything is ranges of probability. I ultimately can’t prove that everyone on the Internet is not a corgi, but it’s highly unlikely.
I specifically disbelieve the Judeo-Christian god exists because that god is claimed to be all-knowing, all-powerful, and merciful. All three are difficult to reconcile with the suffering we see in the world. If he knew everything and was merciful, but powerless to do anything, that would be different. If he was merciful and powerful, but didn’t know any better, that would be different. If he was powerful and knowledgeable, but didn’t give a shit, that would be different. All three, however, is a different matter.
Could there be some other explanation? Perhaps. There have been pages and pages written on that very subject down through the centuries. I’ve found those explanations to be deeply unsatisfying. It’s more likely that such an entity does not exist.
I haven’t gone through every single god in every single pantheon and measured out their likelihood of existing or not. I merely find the concept of a god to be unnecessary to explain the universe around us, so I’m agnostic about the vast majority of them.
I also fail to understand how that addresses the infinite recursion with gods. I mean if there is something. And that requires a creator. Who created the creator? And who created that creator of the creator? I think I tend towards gnostic atheism. I’m pretty sure that the idea of god is a really stupid answer to that question. But I also know how science and knowledge works. So I technically wouldn’t claim to know, unless someone claim’s it’s a different thing for Russel’s teapot or the flying spaghetti-monster. That’s kind of the benchmark to tell if someone understands what I mean by agnostic atheist.
What do you define as “organised religion”
The conventional definition. Any religion that has an institutional existence in society. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and so on.