Answering Atheism in one paragraph

[May Ayob]

Plus there actually were and are atheists in foxholes. There are plenty of combat soldiers who do not believe in Gods. So the desperation turning to Gods thing is not universal.

Maybe because they believe that death is the end? or maybe they aren't satisfied with their lives but because commiting suicide would probably embark alot of dismay they rather choose to become soldiers secretly hoping they will die in their military cruise?. I don't know or maybe they at the brightest side of it are truly selfless people who put their lives in line for others but in that case they would be offering it for their countries own political agendas, even though I maybe wrong...

 

[M.I.A.]

The huge difference is that in science you can find evidence against a theory. The whole idea is to do so. With enough evidence, you move to a new theory. You try not to cling to bad theories, even though I suppose you can't completely 100% disprove anything with absolute certainty. In religion the opposite approach appears to be taken. What would be evidence against your God? Is there anything?

In science you start with admitting you don't know, and you ask questions and seek answers. In religion you start with pretending to know the answers, and you declare "revelation" and "faith". The two approaches are not comparable.

religion is much like science, unfortunately the difference between knowing the official line.. and having any understanding of it is miles apart.
and that is where they differ.

science can be taught and is taught.

if religion of understanding were taught then it would pretty much be judgement day.

i hope you understand.



i mean its very hard to picture a world that is in front of your eyes and yet does not exist for most people. like science again.


if you want me to prove god exists.. i cannot.

i mean the quran is not the expanded word of god, it is a pretext to the understanding of an expanded word.

thats how true it is.

and thats how deliberately it was written.

its like the preface of a book... no disrespect intended.


its aimed at people that dont know.

and people that already do.


the difference between belief and non belief.


its been said before that the quran is a 100% accurate.

its just in its interpretation that people bring doubt.

(its actually said in the quran itself also.. *paraphrased* something like and they did not differ until guidance had come to them.)


i mean if you ask me certain questions i would be stumped. but i guess you wouldnt know what exactly i dont know about.. so im safe.



the evidence against god is in the differing of religions.


the answer is the same always.

as time progresses and people change, culture and language change.

knowledge is lost.


even if you still have the words.


i mean i can look at most things and draw similarities in concepts. that repeat like a pattern.

if you actually had something concrete to begin with, it just makes more and more sense. like science and progressive theory again.


but you actually have to know what your talking about to begin with. and everybody does convince themselves of something.




everybody knows the official line, its in its implementation and understanding that they differ.

and each and every time, the people move forward and slowly leave behind what they had.


but its still there,
it hasnt been taken from you.

its written into the fabric of the universe as constant as science.



what you really have to ask yourself is that if you did understand and did see.

and yet were not able to change things.


what would you write?

its just a case of perspective.


its literally like learning to feel again.

 

[Independent]

Maybe because they believe that death is the end? or maybe they aren't satisfied with their lives but because commiting suicide would probably embark alot of dismay they rather choose to become soldiers secretly hoping they will die in their military cruise?. I don't know or maybe they at the brightest side of it are truly selfless people who put their lives in line for others but in that case they would be offering it for their countries own political agendas, even though I maybe wrong...

Atheists are soldiers for exactly the same reasons as anyone else - either out of necessity, or to protect people they care about, or because they were conscripted and didn't have any choice - same as anyone. The only thing they never become soldiers for, is in the hope of eternal reward in heaven.

 

[Independent]

I have to say to the atheist brothers in humanity, please consider the potential cost and benefit of your belief because from where i am, i see that the potential cost of disbelief as too high. It is more prudent to believe in god until science can prove it otherwise (which i personally believe is never).

I'm glad you still rank atheists as 'brothers in humanity' - some people don't.

With regard to being 'prudent' and not risking hell - I don't understand how anyone can truly say they believe, simply based on a risk-benefit calculation. Isn't belief in the end an emotional thing? You feel it or you don't?

 

[IAmZamzam]

I asked no one for any information at all. Here’s exactly what happened—and I urge everyone to scroll back a page and check for themselves. First titus made the old “respond to ‘without God the universe came out of nothing’ with ‘where did God come from?’” ploy. Then I pointed out that this is the equivalent of a child going, "I know you are but what am I?" I said, “The world was never supposed to be a spiritual entity divorced from normal spacetime restraints, nor is it theorized by modern science as something omnitemporal or eternal. Try again. Or rather I should say *actually* try for real.” This last part seems to be what Pygoscelis is interpreting too literally as a bafflingly cryptic invitation to do some incomprehensible something-or-other that I’m flat out refusing to identify. It isn’t. Rather, it’s just my way of saying, “You failed to refute haroon’s point, better luck next time.” There’s nothing cryptic there, nor was there anything cryptic about my next post, although Pygoscelis claimed that there was:

titus was…deflecting the issue back onto God instead of actually rebutting it…Logic dictates…that when two people are walking through the wild and come across, say, a rock structure, and one of them asks either how it got there in the first place or how it could possibly have gotten its smooth and well-proportioned shape as it is, the other guy is going to get looked at funny if he tries to dodge the question by asking who the sculptor's parents were. It's a complete non-sequitur, if not a reductio ad absurdum. The rock is the subject under discussion; leading things into a potential infinite regression has never solved anything in the history of human thought. It has never been practical to anything. It has never been a brave and direct man’s honest answer to anything either. The atheist calls their little trick “trying to get us to understand that we’re not following our own logic” or something stupid like that. I call it “refusing to sit down and address the issue”. Of course on the rare occasion that they *do* address it that just means I’m about to hear the equally inevitable and groan-inducing “I’m using the phrase ‘quantum flucation’ like it’s some kind of ‘get out of jail free’ card” argument

What on earth is so mysterious about that?? Even if it were difficult to understand, did Pygoscelis never think of asking a specific question regarding what the confusing part of it meant?

Now can we please drop it?

 

[titus]

I don't believe that atheists are the ones "refusing to sit down and address the issue". You make a circular argument when you declare that there has to be a creator, yet nothing created the creator. Your argument presupposes a god in order to prove a god. That makes no sense.

How can one claim that the world is too beautiful to not have a creator, yet claim that something as complex and beautiful as a god does not need one? It is completely illogical and makes absolutely no sense.

I have to say to the atheist brothers in humanity, please consider the potential cost and benefit of your belief because from where i am, i see that the potential cost of disbelief as too high. It is more prudent to believe in god until science can prove it otherwise (which i personally believe is never).

Isn't all religion really a crap shoot? After all the number one factor in what religion everyone chooses (by far) is whatever religion their parents are. The vast majority of the followers of any religion (including Islam) are not followers of that religion because of any special insight they have or studying they have done. It is because their parents raised them that way.

And choose which god? Christianity? If so then Catholic, Methodist, Lutheran, Mormon or.... or Muslim? Then Sunni or Shia or.... or Jewish? Then orthodox, Kabala or.... Buddhist? Hindu? Scientology? No matter which one I pick don't the odds say I am still going to Hell?

I have yet to see any unbiased information that would make me believe one religion over another even if I was in fear of imminent death.

 

[NjmYqlb]

I don't understand how anyone can truly say they believe, simply based on a risk-benefit calculation. Isn't belief in the end an emotional thing? You feel it or you don't?

Belief is a psychological state, it is not an emotion. Emotion is always a response to a stimuli. The risk and benefit calculation i mentioned was to appeal to the intellect part of our inner self to take caution, as scientific people generally put intellect above all other inner self components. The way to truly believe is by asking for it from God, so disbelievers who consider the possibility of God could perhaps start a prayer with "If theres a Creator/God/Supreme being, please guide me to the truth" or something like that

And choose which god? Christianity? If so then Catholic, Methodist, Lutheran, Mormon or.... or Muslim? Then Sunni or Shia or.... or Jewish? Then orthodox, Kabala or.... Buddhist? Hindu? Scientology? No matter which one I pick don't the odds say I am still going to Hell?

Please don't ask me for guidance, i have no power to give it, ask for it straight from the ultimate being/power/creator, so as in my reply to Independent, you too could try praying to the unseen Creator/God/Supreme being for guidance. It will be up to Him to decide

The vast majority of the followers of any religion (including Islam) are not followers of that religion because of any special insight they have or studying they have done. It is because their parents raised them that way

In Islam God told us God doesn't need us at all and is free to do with us as He pleases, fortunately for us His Mercy outweighs His Wrath, but we will have to ask and work for it. Muslims are only asked to relay the message, to worship Him and Him alone, which is what i try to do. A zillion or zero muslims makes no difference to God. That is why, God doesn't ask muslims to force others to convert. It is we who need Him whether we realize it yet or not, unfortunately many muslims have forgotten this and forgot to remind others of this

 

[IAmZamzam]

I’ve been in this situation before—so many times, in fact, that I’m thinking about filling out change of address cards. You refute their point:

[You cannot respond to the subject of “what made the world?” with “what made God?” because unlike God] the world was never supposed to be a spiritual entity divorced from normal spacetime restraints, nor is it theorized by modern science as something omnitemporal or eternal…When two people are walking through the wild and come across, say, a rock structure, and one of them asks either how it got there in the first place or how it could possibly have gotten its smooth and well-proportioned shape as it is, the other guy is going to get looked at funny if he tries to dodge the question by asking who the sculptor's parents were. It's a complete non-sequitur, if not a reductio ad absurdum. The rock is the subject under discussion; leading things into a potential infinite regression has never solved anything in the history of human thought. It has never been practical to anything. It has never been a brave and direct man’s honest answer to anything either.

And since they have no other recourse left, they just repeat themselves instead of doing anything about it:

You make a circular argument when you declare that there has to be a creator, yet nothing created the creator. Your argument presupposes a god in order to prove a god. That makes no sense.

I’m done here because obviously titus is too. This thread has become a broken record.

 

[Pygoscelis]

[You cannot respond to the subject of “what made the world?” with “what made God?” because unlike God] the world was never supposed to be a spiritual entity divorced from normal spacetime restraints, nor is it theorized by modern science as something omnitemporal or eternal

Did you come up with this yourself or cut and paste it from somewhere? Because this special pleading doesn't make any sense. You are just trying to make your God unfalsifiable by doing this, which is exactly what I said before. And having done that what exactly do you want atheists to say to you? You complained that we are all saying the wrong thing, which implies you wanting to hear something else from us. Try again, actually try, as you say. Try to refute the empty unfalsifiable claim you make?

“You failed to refute haroon’s point, better luck next time.”

That is what you meant buried behind all the childish "I know you are but what am I" and "have you stopped beating your wife" rhetoric?

Haroon established no point, so there is nothing to refute.

This thread has become a broken record.

This thread is only a broken record when you keep spouting the same rhetoric and more atheists respond to it in the only way it can be responded to.

 

[M.I.A.]

Isn't all religion really a crap shoot?

well i guess in terms of heaven and hell, no not really.

i mean the way i think about it is a central line.. that i will call the unadulterated truth.

and branching lines of differing length that i will call religions, made up of scripture, ritual, cultures and customs.


the truth remains constant as time flows.

and religions branch off as time goes on.

as long as they are based on the truth then there is some hope.


but the further they get from the truth, the less likely that becomes.


tracing your way back can lead you anywhere, but at least you tried with intent.. which an all knowing, all encompassing god.. would know about.


if it is simply a case of following the religion or way of life you were born into without question, then life is more heavily reliant on your own deeds and actions. it does not make you any lesser not knowing, it just changes your role amongst the people you encounter.


i mean the odds of going to hell are not even in our own hands most of the time. but the saying "give em hell" is pretty apt for an athiest..

the opposition leads to some great answers.



the unbiased information you are looking for is that central truth, that is constant throughout the passage of time.

finding it, is hard work.


but athiests should have had some great answers by now.


i dont know about a creatorless creator.

but i do know that in this world you will always be a cog in the machine.

religion makes you more aware of it,

and quite rightly puts the fear of god into men with any kind of humanity.


thats just the irrelavent truth.
the way the world actually works is very much different.

 

[IAmZamzam]

If at first you don't succeed just accuse the other guy of ulterior motives. If his argument can't be refuted, that must mean he's only trying to make his God unfalsifiable, for instance. Flounder and speak in vague rhetoric about how he's being cryptic and not making any sense, but be extremely careful never to say why. For good measure, treat him like he's being so irrational that he may as well be some specimen of lab rat the like of which you've never studied before. "You're an odd one."

The only thing I was trying to do is exactly what I was succeeding at doing (and the same thing titus was trying and failing to do), which is show why the rationale in question does not work. To “falsify” a theoretical matter that doesn’t involve the empirical you do exactly what I just did and show how the logic is faulty. That’s the only thing you ever can do.

"Haroon established no point?" You see what kind of self-inflicted blindness we're up against here? This will go on for another three pages, won't it?

 

[IAmZamzam]

What am I saying? It takes two to argue. It won't go on if I don't let it. So I'm cutting it off right here. Let Pygoscelis have any last word he likes. I've said what I have to say already.

 

[sambhunath]

According to Surah 2:25 -Al- Baqarah-of Holy Quran read as under-

" And give good tidings to those who believe and do righteous deeds that they will have gardens(in Paradise) beneth which river flow. when ever they are provided with a provision of fruity therefrom, they will say,"This is what we are provided with before" And it is given to them in likeness. And they will abide therein eternally."
Hence paradise is the creation of Allah- not in the earth but according to his will. In addition to this holy Quran-2:35, 2:82, 2:221, 3:15, 3:133, 3:136, 3:142, 3:185, 3:195, 3:198, 4:13, 4:57, 4:95, 4:122, 4:124, 5:12, 5:65, 5:72, 5:85, 5:119, 7:42-47, 7:49-50, 9:72, 9:89, 9:100, 9:111, 10:26, 11:23, 11:108 and in many other chapters last being chapter 98:7-8. Chapter 98 verse 8( Surah-98:8) of holy quran says as under-
"There reward with their Lord will be gardens of perpetual residence beneath which rivers flow, where in they will abide forever, Allah(God) being pleased with them and they with Him. That is for whoever has feared his Lord.
So Paradise in Islam is not located in the earth. Hence, One will know better, if he positively go through the 114 Surahs and 6236 verses of holy quarn.

 

[sambhunath]

When there are creations, there most be a creator. Even in Big Bang Theory, if there was explosion some one explored it. The explorer is also the creator. He is invisible, and no one except Allah. The atheists should read the holy book of Quran first to know the truth.

 

[Karl]

How can you not believe in something that is beyond everyones understanding. If you don't even know what God really is. Then if you have no faith it would make more sense to sit on the fence and say "It's 50 50 that God exits, either life the universe and everything was created by God or it created itself". That would be the scientific perspective, not enough data 1+q=a.

 

[Independent]

The risk and benefit calculation i mentioned was to appeal to the intellect part of our inner self to take caution, as scientific people generally put intellect above all other inner self components

For me, there was one book in particular that turned me away from faith in Christianity. Not a science book, but a history book called 'The Gnostic Gospels' by Elaine Pagel. She was part of a team working on the Nag Hammadi gospels, a collection of gnostic texts miraculously discovered intact in a cave in Egypt in 1945.

Essentially the author uses the texts to show how the new religion was affected by the need to construct an organised Church that could survive into the future. Also, it was influenced by the need to grow the religion in culture dominated by a Greek philosophical world view.

Whether or not her views are correct, it introduced me to the whole issue of how a religion changes through the ages.

 

[Pygoscelis]

If his argument can't be refuted

You made no coherent point. You whined about atheists not giving you evidence and arguments against your unfalsifiable claim, which by nature of it being unfalsifiable they couldn't possibly do. And you posted a bunch of childish insults. What did you expect?

What am I saying? It takes two to argue. It won't go on if I don't let it. So I'm cutting it off right here. Let Pygoscelis have any last word he likes. I've said what I have to say already.

Happy to see you on your way. We were having a civil conversation here before you decided to rudely interject. Perhaps we can get back to that civil discussion now.

 

[Pygoscelis]

How can you not believe in something that is beyond everyones understanding. If you don't even know what God really is. Then if you have no faith it would make more sense to sit on the fence and say "It's 50 50 that God exits, either life the universe and everything was created by God or it created itself". That would be the scientific perspective, not enough data 1+q=a.

We certainly can't disprove Gods existing. But I don't see why you would say we should see 50 / 50 odds. Just because you can't prove or disprove something doesn't make it equally likely as not to exist. I don't lose much sleep worrying over the possible existence of space alien visitors to our planet. With sufficient technology they could be coming and going unnoticed and unnoticeable. But I wouldn't say the odds are 50 /50. Same with Gods. I see no reason to believe they exist, so I don't take on that belief. If actual evidence ever comes up for the claim, then I am more than happy to reconsider. My mind is open to the idea of Gods. I think it would actually be pretty cool. But I just don't see any reason to think it so.

 

[Pygoscelis]

For me, there was one book in particular that turned me away from faith in Christianity. Not a science book, but a history book called 'The Gnostic Gospels' by Elaine Pagel. She was part of a team working on the Nag Hammadi gospels, a collection of gnostic texts miraculously discovered intact in a cave in Egypt in 1945.

Essentially the author uses the texts to show how the new religion was affected by the need to construct an organised Church that could survive into the future. Also, it was influenced by the need to grow the religion in culture dominated by a Greek philosophical world view.

Whether or not her views are correct, it introduced me to the whole issue of how a religion changes through the ages.

I remember reading "History of God" by Karen Armstrong, It was a similar read. It traced back Judaism, Christianity, and Islam through the various incarnations and interpretations that have been popular throughout time. It is pretty interesting to see how the concept of the God changes over time.

 

[Pygoscelis]

i mean the odds of going to hell are not even in our own hands most of the time. but the saying "give em hell" is pretty apt for an athiest..

the opposition leads to some great answers.

I don't understand what you mean by this. Care to explain further?

the unbiased information you are looking for is that central truth, that is constant throughout the passage of time.

finding it, is hard work.


but athiests should have had some great answers by now.

Science?