Will atheist ever get the proof of God's existence?

[gang4]

And I wouldn't be at all suprised if a religion when being created incorporated moral values of the day, many of which would be moral values common amongst most humans. The holy books don't say "thou shalt not steal" because god arbitrarily decided he wanted us not to steal, the books say that because the people already had this moral value and so they attributed it to the God that they created. This is also why people assign genders to gods (we say he and she, not it) and attribute characteristics to them and personal interests.



Many. But most would be very similar. Why?

I must admit except taking a class or or two back in the college days, I do not know much about Humanities historical background.

What I do know, bad things are abandon in terms of quantity that's why good things has better quality to balance it out.

Human tends to cater savage behavior than toward civilized one. high degree of knowledge, or set of beliefs religious or cultural may help reduce bad behavior though no guarantee.

my logical side of me says it's like a chicken-egg question, is it a religion got the moral values or the other way around. Of course, my belief side (in this case more dominant) says: Religion, definitely.

That is the beauty of Islam I found, the word Allah has no gender nor plural.


The reason I asked since there are no moral-stopper (no fear of the aftermath in the hereafter etc)... the moral values easily extends beyond religious moral values...

moral values falls into the area of like and dislike of one's ambition/lust/drive (I couldn't find a proper word on this).

Some would agree on one's moral values some won't. COnflicts will easily arises. Moral values will be politicized to achieve one's ambition. So most likely, the strong wil conquer the weak, not much different than dictatorships we've had in the history.


why I assume in the negative direction... because that's the easiest or the first thing human does... (this sentence is a good example, same thing when you are talking about authoritarianism)


It doesn't mean, with religion these things won't happening (God, we saw religious reasons contributed to the caused of war many times)...it always caused by the people not the teaching...


but like someone said: Democracy has lots of weak spots, but that is the best we got...

To me (subjective on this as a sharing note - you don't have to read it), religion is the best tool we got to establish peace among billions of people... and if you see it imperfect... I say other options will be worst....

I believe the first couple (Adam&Eve) disobeyed God so did Iblis (Saytan).. the difference is the couple repented, iblis refused to do so...


God gave the descendant of Adam easy set of rules...If they follow the rules, the good stuff like peace, no suffering, no hunger etc will be achieved but human nature tends to keep disobeying God...

After thousands of years, billions of people things get complicated in maximum ways we can think of...


all the bad stuff, war, hunger, no world peace etc gotten worst... since it's very difficult to blame oneself...then the descendant of Adam blames God.....

All bad things in the world history, to me if we are honest it was caused by human disobeying God rules... not because of God!

How about earthquakes stuff that casuing people to die and not from deforestations stuff like that? Is it not God fault? No. TO us, dying has a bad connotation, but to God, every creatures has their time...He will raise us just like that...

Not everything is logical, even the why energy exists is a mystery to us which I doubt will be solved...

For example where were we when we are sleeping or unconciouss? you can go psychological on this by explaining 4 different sleep stages (I forgot I think is four)...You may find explanations about biochemistry working at our brain... bu does it really explain about soul?

so many unknown, the anthropic principle, the entropy's law, murphy's law, bad stuff in much bigger volumes than the good stuff... does it really the evolution can explain from a single cell amino acids developped into a humand being or other creatures?

I am giving random thoughts here.... you have other points, I got no chance to touch....

but I do receive some input from you....

 

[gang4]

I would have thought Atheists have better morals and ethics than their religious counterparts. Athests base their morality and ethics on what the soceity finds acceptable. We evaluate what is best in the interest of society and individual and act accofrdigly. What have the deluded faithheads got. They have the primitive and barbaric bronze age texts which they believe is sent by some creature living in the sky through jinns and jibreels, supernatural creatures that fly through space to reach earth. Its all rubbish and doesnt make any sense. How can anybody be anything other than an atheist, that is what I do not understand.

Only a mentally deluded fool would believe in god, jinni, iblees, flying buraq, prophets, life after death, heaven and hell and all that nonsense.

Likewise it's an idiotic statement...
Not even a word of intelligence...
I am requesting a ban for this account...

 

[gang4]

Brother, you are just too lazy. Too lazy to think. Which is why you want me banned, so that you would not have to think about these questions.

And what I said about faith is true. Religious faith is irrational. It is a belief held in spite of firm evidence against the claims made. That makes religious beliefs "delusional". And people who believe in it are foolish to do so when so much information refuting their beliefs is readily available to us today. That makes them "deluded fools".

I am sorry if I have offended anyone, I can apologise for that. But I stand by my arguments made in this regard.

You are jawing about morals and ethis...and jump into conclusion that
we are mentally deluded fool by believing in God... are there any correlations?

then you call me too lazy to think...and concluded I would not have to think abou these questions... are you a mind reader now? anything you say is always in agreement with reality?

You gave us only few lines and concluded we are fools... and gave an impression you are the only one who can have arguments.. others who differ are mentally deluded and fool?

Is it not an idiotic statement...? Can you not tell who is mentally deluded and a fool?

If you can't then look into the mirror....

 

[Trumble]

And what I said about faith is true. Religious faith is irrational. It is a belief held in spite of firm evidence against the claims made. That makes religious beliefs "delusional". And people who believe in it are foolish to do so when so much information refuting their beliefs is readily available to us today. That makes them "deluded fools".

Even as a religious atheist (not a contradiction in terms for a Buddhist) I'm puzzled by that - I am not aware of any 'firm evidence' whatsoever in that context? About the one thing most here agree on is that there is no 'firm evidence' either way, and the fact the debate continues at full force several thousand years after it started rather supports that view.

However, I fear your stay here will be short. You really can't just turn up on a religious forum and then insult everybody already there for being religious. You disagree with them, fine, but there is no need to be rude. Instead, there are some fine theist debators here when they come out to play; you never know, you might just learn something if you engage constructively.

 

[Duncan Ferguson]

Brother, there is no such thing as a religious atheist. You are either with us, on the side of reason, logic and rationality, or you are not. Simple as that.

You are a Buddhist. I have no problem with that. As a vegetarian atheist, I have a lot of respect for Buddhists, but please dont call yourself an atheist if you belong to an organised religion. We try to keep our group an elite one and limit our numbers if we have to. There is admission to Atheism only for the intellectual elites because we focus on quality rather than quantity.

An absurd post which belies the idea of an elite group which would have SundriedAtheist as a member. Atheism is a belief that no gods exist and is therefore not umbilically connected with rationalism.

Trumble, is there anywhere that you know that offers someone like me the opportunity to address Buddhism? I've tried in the past but I find it very difficult - possibly due to my own limitations - because they are so difficult to pin down, metaphorically-speaking.

 

[Skavau]

And if you are interested to play word-boxing to exercise self-pride... I am not.
It seems to me one of us or both incapacitate to have a fruitful discussion. I see no reason to continue.

Okay.

But remember this is an open-forum. If you begin make erroneous and ignorant assertions about Atheists again, I will respond again. It is entirely up to you if you wish to respond further. Never let just one side of the argument lay.

 

[جوري]

:? I never said it disproved god, I said it doesn't need god because time can account for the complexity,

Time accounts for the complexity because you have said so? Don't you need to give scientific support to your claims? Further I have already stated time as an attribute of God, if you'd actually bother read, which in fact still puts a second dent in your claim, 'things happening due to time', since time is ascribed to him!

meaning that if you want to convince an atheist, don't offer that as evidence. It's not. I don't know much about abiogenesis but if it's actual science, I doubt it's just hot air.

1- I don't need to convince an atheist of anything!
2-Shouldn't you be well read on the atheist pronunciamento before engaging in a topic that asserts a universal negative so you can handle yourself with some dexterity?

As I've said before, this thread isn't doing much. Whether there is a god or not doesn't matter. If there was proof of a god, then I'd be a deist. The only question I as an atheist is concerned with is what evidence is there that a certain religion is right? (not looking for answers in this thread). As far as lifestyle goes, atheists, agnostics, deists or anyone who doesn't believe in a personal god are pretty much the same in that we don't know believe in a religious god so it's confusing why atheists seem to be looked down upon, perhaps we speak louder?

No! the majority of atheists just speak without any abstract thought or intellectual acuity, which makes them duller...
I don't look down on anyone, if I wanted to, I'd spend my time looking for your forums stressing my stands.. as it so happens, it is you who is frequenting a religious forum, peddling non-scientific drivel and hoping somehow it will take!

cheers

 

[Trumble]

Trumble, is there anywhere that you know that offers someone like me the opportunity to address Buddhism? I've tried in the past but I find it very difficult - possibly due to my own limitations - because they are so difficult to pin down, metaphorically-speaking.

Sent you a p.m.

 

[Skavau]

Time accounts for the complexity because you have said so? Don't you need to give scientific support to your claims? Further I have already stated time as an attribute of God, if you'd actually bother read, which in fact still puts a second dent in your claim, 'things happening due to time', since time is ascribed to him!

Circular arguments work because circular arguments work because circular arguments work because circular arguments work.

Just because you have stated time as an attribute of God does not at all give us any reason to believe it is actually true.

 

[Eeman]

Sent you a p.m.

brother trumble peace

can i ask you a question since you are a buddhist,,, sorry guys off topic i know but ummm you know the main belief of buddhism wha is it?
i mean from my understanding of buddhism correct me if i am wrong you guys belief that depending on the piety, as in ummm i dunno ranking of the person through meditation etc one can reach the status of being god? is that true?

 

[Trumble]

brother trumble peace

can i ask you a question since you are a buddhist,,, sorry guys off topic i know but ummm you know the main belief of buddhism wha is it?

In a nutshell, Buddhism explains the nature of suffering and how it can be ended. I suppose its 'main belief' is that suffering can be ended by following the path set out by the Buddha.

i mean from my understanding of buddhism correct me if i am wrong you guys belief that depending on the piety, as in ummm i dunno ranking of the person through meditation etc one can reach the status of being god? is that true?

No. The condition Buddhists ultimately seek is nirvana, the supreme state free from suffering and individual existence. There is no suggestion nirvana equates to 'becoming God'; indeed Buddhists do not believe God exists. Nirvana is the ultimate human state, not a divine one.

Anyway, as you say this is off topic. Try THIS thread.

 

[Tornado]

No! the majority of atheists just speak without any abstract thought or intellectual acuity, which makes them duller...
I don't look down on anyone, if I wanted to, I'd spend my time looking for your forums stressing my stands.. as it so happens, it is you who is frequenting a religious forum, peddling non-scientific drivel and hoping somehow it will take!

cheers

The real reason I am an atheist is that I can't comprehend how something magical/perfect can exists since I don't believe in magic.

If there is evidence for a god, it could be a deist's god or a theist's god. As I've said, then my only concern is what evidence is there for a certain religion to be right? Anyways, I'm not sure why you are on this thread if you don't want to convince atheists. There are many on here who would gladly do that while it seems to me you wouldn't mind seeing atheists burn in hell for eternity, and worse.

 

[جوري]

Circular arguments work because circular arguments work because circular arguments work because circular arguments work.

Just because you have stated time as an attribute of God does not at all give us any reason to believe it is actually true.

Aha.. does that work both ways? Just because 'you' plural state, Rocks become folks on the account of the passage of a long loooong looooong time, does not at all give us any reason to believe it is true.. fact is, when you (plural) make a statement as such and claim it 'scientific', the burden of proof dwells in your court to be prove it!..

Otherwise we are all wasting each others' time and I so hate for my time to be wasted!


cheers

 

[جوري]

The real reason I am an atheist is that I can't comprehend how something magical/perfect can exists since I don't believe in magic.

What is magical about God, that is more of a stretch from autogeny?

If there is evidence for a god, it could be a deist's god or a theist's god. As I've said, then my only concern is what evidence is there for a certain religion to be right? Anyways, I'm not sure why you are on this thread if you don't want to convince atheists. There are many on here who would gladly do that while it seems to me you wouldn't mind seeing atheists burn in hell for eternity, and worse.

You can't investigate the minor nuances of religion(s), when you don't believe in the fulcrum tenet (God)--- The majority believe the proposition Of God, is not susceptible to proof or disproof; its truth is assumed to be self-evident... the way you assume (x) to equal 1 if someone proposes 3+x= 4... we need not see God, as everything in existence is proof of him..

I don't think most folks here are trying to convince you of anything, again, if we were looking to pass da3wa we'd visit your forums to spread it.. what kind of logic do you employ when you write?

I am here because I enjoy two things!
1- Islam
2- pointing out the drivel of raving lunatics!

cheers

 

[Tornado]

What is magical about God, that is more of a stretch from autogeny?

Everything? God has no explanation. An entity with infinite powers, I find it hard to believe.

You can't investigate the minor nuances of religion(s), when you don't believe in the fulcrum tenet (God)--- The majority believe the proposition Of God, is not susceptible to proof or disproof; its truth is assumed to be self-evident... the way you assume (x) to equal 1 if someone proposes 3+x= 4... we need not see God, as everything in existence is proof of him..

I don't think most folks here are trying to convince you of anything, again, if we were looking to pass da3wa we'd visit your forums to spread it.. what kind of logic do you employ when you write?

I am here because I enjoy two things!
1- Islam
2- pointing out the drivel of raving lunatics!

cheers

Having proof of a god doesn't mean anything as I already said, I am only interested in evidence for religions to be right. Of course I don't believe in a god because there is no evidence. What you see as evidence (complexities/beauties) is not evidence for a god. That's why you have to turn to actual evidence in the holy books.
I actually do see Muslims here that are very helpful while some, like yourself, who insult when it comes to talking to atheists.

 

[جوري]

Everything?

What is everything, I don't understand fragments!

God has no explanation. An entity with infinite powers, I find it hard to believe.

This concerns me how?

Having proof of a god doesn't mean anything as I already said, I am only interested in evidence for religions to be right.

And I have already stated, you can't explore an option before you accept the basic tenets!
You can't speak of nucleophilic substitution if you don't understand a transamination reaction!

Of course I don't believe in a god because there is no evidence. What you see as evidence (complexities/beauties) is not evidence for a god. That's why you have to turn to actual evidence in the holy books.
I actually do see Muslims here that are very helpful while some, like yourself, who insult when it comes to talking to atheists.

Finding God is a solo journey! and I didn't personally arrive to that clause based on a holy book.. any holy book. As stated before, you have to logically arrive to that port before deciding where to dock.. so if I were I'd refrain from assuming for me why I am one way or the other.

As for your last statement, again, so?

cheers

 

[Duncan Ferguson]

Time accounts for the complexity because you have said so? Don't you need to give scientific support to your claims?

I can never quite understand the problems that theists have with time. Time is a component of any process. If something is possible, then given time it will happen. Some things have a higher probability than others and this is often expressed as a timescale.

 

[جوري]

I can never quite understand the problems that theists have with time. Time is a component of any process. If something is possible, then given time it will happen. Some things have a higher probability than others and this is often expressed as a timescale.

You'll forgive me with being particular.. this is how I like to work! systematically
for instance:
5609586958 BC hard consolidated mineral matter which came from God knows where acquired a new base pair from God knows where and incorporated it into itself to make perinephric fat.. 5609586959 BC the same consolidated mineral matter now with perinephric fat decided to take unto itself another few base pairs from God knows where to proliferate into Gerotals Facia.. Do you catch my drift? I'd like for you to validate that scientifically and establish why it happened in that fashion so that they fall into a properly working system not a glob of green goo.. and to do it for every organ system until it reaches complex form, then for every plant, for every life form, for every ocean for every fruit for every planet..

Until then 'time component' is really not very telling is it?


cheers

 

[Skavau]

Aha.. does that work both ways? Just because 'you' plural state, Rocks become folks on the account of the passage of a long loooong looooong time

The hell?

Rocks don't evolve.

, does not at all give us any reason to believe it is true.. fact is, when you (plural) make a statement as such and claim it 'scientific', the burden of proof dwells in your court to be prove it!..

I see what you are saying here. And yes, it is true. Simply claiming something does not make it true. However, I have not actually made any claims without having evidence and/or reason to back it up.

 

[Skavau]

This concerns me how?

I'm sorry, I just had to draw attention to this comment I saw from Skye.

It doesn't concern you at all you if you don't find it interesting but lest you appear to forget that you and Tornado are having a discussion. Making rather rude statements like that when he states his own beliefs on the matter of God is completely out of place and over the top.