Are atheists missing something?

[Fabiano]

the time goes by…god is “denied” by every possible circumstance…and situation, everything serves as a proof of his non-existence, and yet his deniers don’t provide us with clearer and more workable explanations to our existence.

the fact remains invariably the same: without an external cause to the universe, the universe becomes its own cause, then, we can only conclude that the universe is god.

how can atheists manage that?

are they all fool?

or am I missing something here?

Work on that, Oreso, Dan, Scy…

[oreso]

@Fabiano

the time goes by…god is “denied” by every possible circumstance…and situation, everything serves as a proof of his non-existence, and yet his deniers don’t provide us with clearer and more workable explanations to our existence.

the fact remains invariably the same: without an external cause to the universe, the universe becomes its own cause, then, we can only conclude that the universe is god.

how can atheists manage that?

are they all fool?

or am I missing something here?

Work on that, Oreso, Dan, Scy…

With pleasure.

Universe is God? Why? Something that is uncaused is not necessarily omni-whatever or conscious.

Without evidence for an external cause, you are simply making stuff up.

[scythekain]

@Fabiano

the time goes by…god is “denied” by every possible circumstance…and situation, everything serves as a proof of his non-existence, and yet his deniers don’t provide us with clearer and more workable explanations to our existence.

We exist to live. We live because we exist. As epicurus stated; “Death is no worry, death only affects the dead. Death has no power over the living.”

the fact remains invariably the same: without an external cause to the universe, the universe becomes its own cause, then, we can only conclude that the universe is god.

Why? Because it gives you a warm feeling inside your belly? Think about what god is. God is the universal parent. We want to be the infants, having our great super parent taking care of us always. We want to know that, There is more to this world than we see with our eyes.

My question is how can you not call yourself an atheist? Do you think that your version of god matches all the other peoples on the planet? By the very fact that you reject other gods, you are an atheist to those gods.

I just take it a step further. I reject a belief in all gods.

Now… it may be that there is some sort of “being” that created the universe. But, by the very fact that we can see he has no effect on our world… to me it shows that if he exists he doesn’t want us to worship him/her/it. Deity worship is the very cause of exclusive beliefs. All religions started out with a mere mystical interpretation of god, which then got piled on with crap. Burning animals for sin sacrifice, dietary rules, sexual rules, societal rules… It became less about god and more about controlling mankind.

I also understand, that our quest for god is a mere wishing to return to our neorological roots of when we had a caring figure watching over us 24 hours a day. Our image of god, comes from when we were being cared for by our mom. Every time that someone prays or meditates, it returns to those pathways that were the first ones recorded within our minds. It returns us to a state of inner peace, because there was nothing that could harm us…

One could say that’s proof that god wired us to believe in him… That may be, but isn’t it more likely a condition that developed vis a vie evolution? Isn’t it desirable to have people that have an ability to have empathy (which these pathways give us.) an ability to love our children unconditionally to help them get to adulthood? The brain takes ALOT of energy, and it’s beneficial to have a caring group of adults to help nurture that brain. Those societies that didn’t adapt these behaviours and selections didn’t grow or progress… The neanderthal is a perfect example. Their society was just unable to compete with early homo sapiens. Most likely due to the fact that we had an advantage in numbers and in brains. We developed an understanding (a belief in the supernatural via the developing pathways.) of how the world worked.

how can atheists manage that?

Quite easily… simply admit that you don’t know.

are they all fool?

That’s a bit presumptious isn’t it? Are you really so certain that your view of the universe is correct?

or am I missing something here?

I think you are missing something due to faith, as I told das, faith is the greatest mortar ever made. It can bridge enormous gaps of reason.

Work on that, Oreso, Dan, Scy…

QED.

[Jerry]

@scythekain

My question is how can you not call yourself an atheist? Do you think that your version of god matches all the other peoples on the planet? By the very fact that you reject other gods, you are an atheist to those gods.

Not necessarily. Maybe each ‘version’ of God is merely a human attempt to define what is undefinable. It’s a pretty tall order to conceive of, in human terms, a being with the capability of creating something as vast and amazing as the universe. Maybe all the versions put together get us close. Maybe not. But rejection of one version is not rejection of ‘that’ God. It’s merely a rejection of one human attempt to define God.

[Fabiano]

I’m not saying that I am a theist, nor an agnostic or an atheist.

I prefer to analyze this question from a neutral point of view.

The fact is that atheists find a reason to deny god everywhere and everytime, but they are almost always just attacking a particular (religious) definition of god.

See how Oreso talks about an “omni-whatever and conscious being”…that was not my point.

maybe denying god implies in the denying of a cause-and-effect world?

[oreso]

@Fabiano

I’m not saying that I am a theist, nor an agnostic or an atheist.

I prefer to analyze this question from a neutral point of view.

The fact is that atheists find a reason to deny god everywhere and everytime, but they are almost always just attacking a particular (religious) definition of god.

See how Oreso talks about an “omni-whatever and conscious being”…that was not my point.

maybe denying god implies in the denying of a cause-and-effect world?

eh? then you are being misleading by using the word god at all. Defining god as a sentient omni-lotsa-stuff creator is not controversial.

Why would you want a non-religious definition of God anyway?

[Fabiano]

why do you think all classical philosophers needed to believe in a first cause, even if they weren’t religious at all?

[oreso]

@Fabiano

why do you think all classical philosophers needed to believe in a first cause, even if they weren’t religious at all?

because they couldnt imagine quantum mechanics?

[my_real_name]

@oreso

@Fabiano

why do you think all classical philosophers needed to believe in a first cause, even if they weren’t religious at all?

because they couldnt imagine quantum mechanics?

No one can imagine quantum mechanics.

[oreso]

@my real name

@oreso

@Fabiano

why do you think all classical philosophers needed to believe in a first cause, even if they weren’t religious at all?

because they couldnt imagine quantum mechanics?

No one can imagine quantum mechanics.

well, yeah, “imagine” in the sense “have an image of” sure, but pedantry isnt an attractive feature.

[ChimneySweep]

I don’t believe in god, which puts me in the atheist box. I acknowledge that he might exist, but in the absence of proof I employ Ockham’s Razor and assume that he doesn’t. I think this is the most rational and justifiable thing to do.

[aporia]

why do you think all classical philosophers needed to believe in a first cause, even if they weren’t religious at all?

Because they thought about the universe as a thing that would have causes and a destiny and such when this view is not warranted. See my “The Universe is a Story not a Thing” thread here.

In this case I believe the classical philosophers were mistaken, just like Aristotle was mistaken about gravity.

[scythekain]

@aporia

why do you think all classical philosophers needed to believe in a first cause, even if they weren’t religious at all?

Because they thought about the universe as a thing that would have causes and a destiny and such when this view is not warranted. See my “The Universe is a Story not a Thing” thread here.

In this case I believe the classical philosophers were mistaken, just like Aristotle was mistaken about gravity.

We know more than the people of the past!!! Say it ain’t so!

@fabiano

The fact is that atheists find a reason to deny god everywhere and everytime, but they are almost always just attacking a particular (religious) definition of god.

you didn’t even read my post did you? I stated that it’s possible god exists, but it’s more than likely he doesn’t want us worshipping him, otherwise he’d make himself known much like a tyrant makes himself known.

@fabiano

maybe denying god implies in the denying of a cause-and-effect world?

Looking at the weather forecast denies a cause and effect world. They can never get the damn weather right.

Then we look smaller, to the micro level and we see quarks pop in and out of existence. We put a black cat in a box, we don’t know the state of the black cat… is it dead? is it alive?

[Fabiano]

@ChimneySweep

I don’t believe in god, which puts me in the atheist box. I acknowledge that he might exist, but in the absence of proof I employ Ockham’s Razor and assume that he doesn’t. I think this is the most rational and justifiable thing to do.

there isn’t absence of proof.

Our existence can be a proof, the existence of order in the universe can be a proof, the fact that everything has a cause can be a proof.

but only theists understand that.

Because they thought about the universe as a thing that would have causes and a destiny and such when this view is not warranted. See my “The Universe is a Story not a Thing” thread here.

In this case I believe the classical philosophers were mistaken, just like Aristotle was mistaken about gravity.

I guess they thought so because the WHOLE is not understandable if we are left only with particular perspectives…

no absolute= no particulars, that was the question

[scythekain]

@Fabiano

Our existence can be a proof

Our existence is proof that our parents knew how to have sex. (or at the very least guessed.) And so on with their parents.

the existence of order in the universe can be a proof

order in the universe? And how many large asteroids have struck the earth in the past?

solarviews.com/eng/tercrate.htm

Is that order?

Or the massive quake in 2004 that generated a killer tsunami… is that order?

Do you think the asteroid belt was always asteroids? It was once a planet larger than our own… Can you imagine the collision that destroyed it and turned it into a trillion asteroids? It’s completely possible in our “ordered” universe for such an event to happen to Earth.

the fact that everything has a cause can be a proof.

Everything in our macro scale, can seem to have a cause, but even then we have to deal with probabilities, there are unseen factors that may even be affected by the micro (quantum) scale. Weather, Earthquakes, Volcanoes, Hurricanes. With all of the data we had of hurricane Katrina, no forecasters were predicting it would veer off to Mississipi at the last second.

but only theists understand that.

well, the atheist determinist would agree with a caused world as well. They just call the big bang an explosive first cause without the need for a deity.

Frankly. I agree with Chimney sweep. There may very well be a god, that controls our chaotic universe… using reason and occams razor… it seems highly unlikely.

[Drift]

ahhh fab,you have some good points. i also see stuff like future man’s “athiesm is just as valid as thiesm” thread. some people get on the right track.

all athiests say the same thing. maybe in diffrent words but it’s all the same. argueing with them is useless. at a certain point i must wait for god to do something obvious to them or whatever.i belive at a point they want an answer directly from god,not a man. i’ve seen it before.

at some point these people are influenced by something to become this exact mind set, and to my knowledge it dosnt change. however,i know like no case historys because i’m so isolated.so i dont actually know if athiests ever change thier mind or not,once they get to the “you cant prove dick to me” point.

fab,creation was my foundation of arguement of creationism,but no one belived it that posted anyway.they all charge forward with evolution.
i so agree with W.C. wilzchek(i hope i remember right) that said “no life can come of dead chemicals.” i’ve said this before and there is no reason to debait it in this thread instead of those past.

fabiano,i much like your opening post. but to debait this stuff with these guys is useless in my opinion.

Cheers!

[Dan1 (Dan~)]

In theory, an omnimeta cycle “creates” infinite realities, universes and dimensions [and yes, it even “created” phase-space, which is the realm of all possibility].

We just happened to evolve within a part of the universe that was stable enough for us to have billions of years and a suitable planet/physics, so that we could evolve.

Quite simply: all that evolution needs is the ability to prepetuate and advance itself, even in the most simple initial form.

Is an evolving microorganism more fantastic then a heavenly father? Or less? And why has it already been proven that microbes such as the flue virus CAN and DO evolve!?

We cannot compare our stable universe with other more/less stable universes and realities because we are not within these. It simply does not matter how low the odds are of our universe existing and being stable, because there are infinite other more and less stable universes and realities.

If there is a God, “He” is an obviously weak wave-based [NOT PARTICLE BASED] living structure in phase-space that can only partially effect waves of consciousness within earthly intelligent life. [Yes, 3d data and quantum computation can happen when the computer has no power flowing into it.]

Angels and Demons will never be able to establish solid communications/influance with humans during our current technological and biological capacity, and even if they did.

Predictions of false religion [“Babylon the great”] ‘falling’ and Christ [factual truth, practical solutions] returning – in a spiritual sense, would be more likely to be a technological revolution that actuated first contact with “spirit” life forms [maybe once we develop 4d computers? Long range? or some shit!?] – and I’d think an armogeddon and holy army are less likely…

If your left spiritually hungery, better understand the art of your own happiness, but if your wondering about God, the bible is a dead end and becoming a physics researcher would be a more productive opition.

The bible hasn’t produced any new objective findings/answers even though it had far more time and man power put into it [yah, it even had God, but still, where’s that truth that you made us hungery for then shit your lies into our hungery young minds!?]

I’ll say it again:
Because of the existence of our universe, the existence of a universe is possible. Because of our universe having a beginning [was ‘created’], creating a universe is possible. Because of our reality supporting the existence of physics, energy, matter, and systems/fabrics of existent all – a reality is possible to exist. Theoretically [though physical laws are local to the elements and energies anyways!] there can even exist more then one reality.

Is it really so absurd to think that a big man behind clouds [theorized by anicent morons, mad men, leaders, powerholders and those abundant with false knowledge] is some sort of trustable solid fact? Or is it most likely to be a very believable misconception that was never disproved, yet was abundant in appeal and cultural training/human nature, so that it just felt true and everyone made up ‘reasons’ to support it?

~Say no to God~

God is a dead-end “explanation”, in which we can say “God did it” or “the Devil did it” instead of understanding the process. [shame and hate/judgment of ‘sin’ also cause a dead-end tot he understanding of the true source/reason for the process!]

You do know that these dead-end claims and rationalizations actually slowed down or completely stopped true learning about “God(s)”?

[b]

I belive at a point they want an answer directly from god,not a man. i’ve seen it before.

WELL THEN GOD’S ALL-SEEING EYES SHOULD NOTICE OUR ‘SPIRITUAL’ NEEDS/WEAKNESSES, AND “HIS” ‘TRUTHFUL’ MOUTH SHOULD SPEEK THE HELL UP!, BECAUSE I DON’T HEAR ANY REAL ANSWERS, DO YOU!?[/b]

so i dont actually know if athiests ever change thier mind or not,once they get to the “you cant prove dick to me” point.

And you, of all people, would be willing to die for something that you can’t even prove to one sceptic!?!?!?!

Why? Because it gives you a warm feeling inside your belly? Think about what god is. God is the universal parent. We want to be the infants, having our great super parent taking care of us always.

Which is part of human instinct, to expect parents to exist above self, because these parents shaped the development of most of this persons ‘self’.

It is a great relief to nolonger expect justice from God, becuase firstly we don’t recieve this justice [hence the need for judicial systems in society], and justice doesn’t naturally exist in the ecosystem outside of our little society/home.

Things happen because they can happen, not because God did them, and this is why we see both justice and injustice, because life tries to be opertunistic and versitile.

The meaning of life is your own satisfaction, and your sense of belonging. If your life feels like it has no meaning, this does not and cannot mean that all life on earth is meaningless, but it does mean that your current mental/emotional system design does not fit into or connect to your environment in any satisfying or deep way [at the time, but with enough searching we may find something to connect to and feel great with, if we know what to look for].

[Drift]

i see you have replaced god with science. but tell me: do you belive in evolution now? and no a dont want a huge boring reply.

[Dan1 (Dan~)]

home.entouch.net/dmd/prob.htm
more about the chances of initial evolution being sparked in a genetic soup.

May I add, if your current meaning at this time has a longing for / lacking of meaning found in the passed and within your origin, it only shows that your present is meaningless in some way, because your passed had a far different meaning then your present.

False philosophies that tried to refine the body from the mind, much like those falsehood-filled Xians who tried to refine “sin” our of self, lead to interlat disunity and repressions/misunderstandings.

If your mind thinks about big horrible paradoxis and feels meaningless, would you ever stop to think that your brain is in your head, and part of your body, and your body needs your head, thoughts and focus directed back into yourself? That’s right! Be selfish! Focus on the emediate things that effect your life, and this will help you not put the horse before the cart. We can’t dream of being ritch for 20 years without working at making money, or even knowing how-the-hell to get ‘ritch’, but then it would be even better if we realized that true happiness doesn’t have much to do with money.

If any of you have some vast hunger for turth and justice, I’d suggest not overwhelming yourself with un-touchable distant concepts, and focus on your modern steps towards some sort of good goal [which most people have, yet our main problem lays in direction/guidance].

[Dan1 (Dan~)]

@Drift

i see you have replaced god with science. but tell me: do you belive in evolution now? and no a dont want a huge boring reply.

Then you don’t want the truth.