Why are you an Atheist?

[Genivaria]

No proof that there isn't a God either.

so right dude so right

[Tlaceceyaya]

No proof that there isn't a God either.

so right dude so right

True, but the scientific default is to assume a claim is false until it can be proven.

[Ashmoria]

loving god hating people is sorta mutually exclusive.

Why is god loving?

its one of the tenets of christianity.

[Hossaim]

Im gong to make this as clear as possible.

Believing in some kind of overpowering deity: Ok, i can see how you might come to that conclusion and respect it.


Believing in the bible god: Delusional.

[Lordieth]

I'm an Apathetic Agnostic, which is pretty much as close as you can get to Atheism without actually being an Atheist. I find Atheism to have too much of a finality to it, which doesn't appeal to the scientist in me at all.

I am unsure whether a higher entity than us exists beyond or observation or understanding, and I think we'll never know either way. If God does exist, our limited understanding of the Universe couldn't do this entity justice in even attempting to describe it.

The more complex we understand the Universe to be, the less likely it seems we are of any focal importance. I accept that some things are beyond knowing, and the possibility of a god-like being is one of them.

[Four-sided Triangles]

Then neither is "no proof that there is a god".

It works both ways.

No it doesn't. Sorry but this symmetry doesn't exist.

[Crystalcliff Point]

its one of the tenets of christianity.

A more interesting question than the why is the how: HOW is the Christian god loving?

[Snow Flake Soul]

No proof that there isn't a homunculus residing within my brain.
No proof that my heart isn't a mutated radish.
No proof I'm not Samuel L. Jackson.

See why that's not a very good argument?

Then neither is "no proof that there is a god".

It works both ways.

The question is : Why not god show his face to us ?

is he afraid of some kind of animal ? ( he can make them go extinct in a blink of an eye )
is he afraid of robbery ? ( he can just make a new purse )
is he afraid that someone will randomly shot him ? ( well ... he's not supposed to "die" if he's a god )
or is it that he afraid of us human .... well, he can kill us all right here right now .... why not ? ....

There is just no reason to show his face to us.
and just because of that, he doesn't exist.

At least we see some picture of UFO, some evidence in history that UFO existed .... TAKE THAT GOD O_o ...

[Lordieth]

Then neither is "no proof that there is a god".

It works both ways.

No it doesn't. Sorry but this symmetry doesn't exist.

It's a Burden of Proof fallacy; http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... proof.html

http://logical-critical-thinking.com/lo ... f-fallacy/


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

'There's no proof that God doesn't exist' is a nonsense statement.

[Eleutheria]

If you presume, as the Catholic Church and the Bible states, that God is Omnipresent, omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent-then what possible excuse can there be for suffering. If he is omniscient then he knows that there is suffering, if he is omnibenevolent he want to stop that suffering, if he is omnipresent then he in a postition to stop that suffering, and if he is omnipotent he has the power to stop that suffering. So why is there suffering, either God is omnipresent or omnibenevolent or omniscient or omnipotent, in which case his "divinely inspired" Bible and gospels are mistaken on some level (which they surely wouldn't be if god is omnipotent), or more rationally God doesnt exist. There is an argument that Gods non-interventionism is necessary to allow free will, but surely an all powerful creator could create a world in which there wasn't a need for suffering but one that still had free will. As far as I can tell he is far too paradoxical to exist, at least exist as he is described by mainstream religion. I won't believe in god until I am given sufficent reason to.

[TheIncorporation]

The question is : Why not god show his face to us ?

At least we see some picture of UFO, some evidence in history that UFO existed .... TAKE THAT GOD O_o ...

....reading over this thread, I find that I'm glad I'm not one of you.

See, the thing is that I won't actively attempt to claim your beliefs are false, debunk them with a bunch of strawmen and insults, and post a billion posts about why you're wrong. I simply don't care as much about debunking your "theories". But for some reason, all of you people seem hell-bent on proving me wrong in what I believe.

There's no evidence that God hasn't existed? Here's the one thing. The Bible is absolutely ridiculously accurate. It's had over 40 authors over 4000 years, and they don't contradict. There is some slight disparity between the Old Testament and New Testament, but the New Testament represents God's new covenant-the old one was more of a test of humanity. Now, researchers do have copies of the Bible from over 2000 years ago, and they still match what the Bible says now. And there were hundreds of witnesses to these events-even ancient historians mention Jesus. And yes, ancient historians that weren't Christians. That's probably some evidence that he existed, don't you think?

And as for your question, I'll answer that. Would you want a servant or worker who had no faith in you? They only supported you because they knew you were a good worker? They had no trust in you?

No, probably not. Faith is important.

No, I'm not here to have an argument, I just wanted to debunk the ridiculous claim that there isn't any evidence throughout history that Jesus didn't exist.

[Crystalcliff Point]

No, I'm not here to have an argument, I just wanted to debunk the ridiculous claim that there isn't any evidence throughout history that Jesus didn't exist.

Very good, then I suppose you wouldn't mind providing it.

[TheIncorporation]

Okay then.

Cornelius Tacitus, 115 AD.

"Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed."

[Crystalcliff Point]

Okay then.

Cornelius Tacitus, 115 AD.

Actual source please, so I may research into it independently.

[Nightkill the Emperor]

But those were hybrid religions. They didn't believe, say, Christianity and the aztec religion separately and simultaneously.

^ this, mostly.

Also, you simply can't believe in ALL gods, because there are a couple dozen gods who say: "thou shalt believe ONLY in me".

Stop shifting goalposts. You said you can't believe two religions at the same time. Shinto-Buddhism proves you incorrect.

[Hossaim]

Okay then.

Cornelius Tacitus, 115 AD.

"Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed."

As valid a source as a harry potter book.

[Streamland]

^ this, mostly.

Also, you simply can't believe in ALL gods, because there are a couple dozen gods who say: "thou shalt believe ONLY in me".

Stop shifting goalposts. You said you can't believe two religions at the same time. Shinto-Buddhism proves you incorrect.

Shinto-Buddhism is neither Shinto, nor Buddhism.

[Eleutheria]

The question is : Why not god show his face to us ?

At least we see some picture of UFO, some evidence in history that UFO existed .... TAKE THAT GOD O_o ...

....reading over this thread, I find that I'm glad I'm not one of you.

See, the thing is that I won't actively attempt to claim your beliefs are false, debunk them with a bunch of strawmen and insults, and post a billion posts about why you're wrong. I simply don't care as much about debunking your "theories". But for some reason, all of you people seem hell-bent on proving me wrong in what I believe.

There's no evidence that God hasn't existed? Here's the one thing. The Bible is absolutely ridiculously accurate. It's had over 40 authors over 4000 years, and they don't contradict. There is some slight disparity between the Old Testament and New Testament, but the New Testament represents God's new covenant-the old one was more of a test of humanity. Now, researchers do have copies of the Bible from over 2000 years ago, and they still match what the Bible says now. And there were hundreds of witnesses to these events-even ancient historians mention Jesus. And yes, ancient historians that weren't Christians. That's probably some evidence that he existed, don't you think?

And as for your question, I'll answer that. Would you want a servant or worker who had no faith in you? They only supported you because they knew you were a good worker? They had no trust in you?

No, probably not. Faith is important.

No, I'm not here to have an argument, I just wanted to debunk the ridiculous claim that there isn't any evidence throughout history that Jesus didn't exist.

Aside from the obvious contradiction that you cant be expected to both love and fear someone. The Bible is riddled with repetitions and contradictions, things that the Bible bangers would be quick to point out in anything that they want to criticize. For instance, Genesis 1 and 2 disagree about the order in which things are created, and how satisfied God is about the results of his labors. The flood story is really two interwoven stories that contradict each other on how many of each kind of animal are to be brought into the Ark--is it one pair each or seven pairs each of the "clean" ones? The Gospel of John disagrees with the other three Gospels on the activities of Jesus Christ (how long had he stayed in Jerusalem--a couple of days or a whole year?) and all four Gospels contradict each other on the details of Jesus Christ's last moments and resurrection. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke contradict each other on the genealogy of Jesus Christ's father; though both agree that Joseph was not his real father. Repetitions and contradictions are understandable for a hodgepodge collection of documents, but not for some carefully constructed treatise, reflecting a well-thought-out plan.

[Dyakovo]

And besides (to the atheists) there is always Pascal's Wager. Look it up.

Pascal's wager is bullshit. Maybe you should familiarize yourself with it.

Criticism

Criticism of Pascal's Wager began in his own day, and comes from both staunch atheists (who question the 'benefits' of a deity whose 'realm' is beyond reason), and the religious orthodoxy (who primarily take issue with the wager's deistic and agnostic language).
(Two prominent arguments, inconsistent revelations and inauthentic belief, are outlined below.)
Voltaire (another prominent French writer of the enlightenment) a generation after Pascal, rejected the notion that the wager was proof of god as "indecent and childish", adding, "the interest I have to believe a thing is no proof that such a thing exists."[10] (Pascal, however, did not advance the wager as a proof, but rather as a necessary pragmatic decision that is impossible to avoid.[11] He argued that abstaining is not an option and reason is incapable of divining the truth; thus a decision of whether or not to believe must be made by considering the consequences of each possibility.)
[edit]Argument from inconsistent revelations
Main article: Argument from inconsistent revelations
Since there have been many religions throughout history, and therefore many conceptions of god (or gods), some assert that all of them need to be factored into the wager, in an argument known as the argument from inconsistent revelations. This would lead to a high probability of believing in the wrong god, which destroys the mathematical advantage Pascal claimed with his Wager. Denis Diderot, a contemporary of Voltaire, concisely expressed this opinion when asked about the wager, saying "an Imam could reason the same way".[12] J. L. Mackie notes that "the church within which alone salvation is to be found is not necessarily the Church of Rome, but perhaps that of the Anabaptists or the Mormons or the Muslim Sunnis or the worshipers of Kali or of Odin."[13]
Pascal considered this objection briefly among his notes compiled into the Pensées, and dismisses the objection as disingenuous:[14]
“ What say [the unbelievers] then? "Do we not see," say they, "that the brutes live and die like men, and Turks like Christians? They have their ceremonies, their prophets, their doctors, their saints, their monks, like us," etc. If you care but little to know the truth, that is enough to leave you in repose. But if you desire with all your heart to know it, it is not enough; look at it in detail. That would be sufficient for a question in philosophy; but not here, where everything is at stake. And yet, after a superficial reflection of this kind, we go to amuse ourselves, etc. Let us inquire of this same religion whether it does not give a reason for this obscurity; perhaps it will teach it to us.[15] ”

This short but densely packed passage, which alludes to numerous themes discussed elsewhere in the Pensées, has given rise to many pages of scholarly analysis.
Pascal says that unbelievers who rest content with the many-religions objection are people whose scepticism has seduced them into a fatal "repose". If they were really bent on knowing the truth, they would be persuaded to examine "in detail" whether Christianity is like any other religion, but they just cannot be bothered.[16] Their objection might be sufficient were the subject concerned merely some "question in philosophy", but not "here, where everything is at stake". In "a matter where they themselves, their eternity, their all are concerned",[15] they can manage no better than "a superficial reflection" ("une reflexion légère") and, thinking they have scored a point by asking a leading question, they go off to amuse themselves.[17]
As Pascal scholars observe, Pascal regarded the many-religions objection as a rhetorical ploy, a "trap"[18] that he had no intention of falling into. If, however, any who raised it were sincere, they would want to examine the matter "in detail". In that case, they could get some pointers by turning to his chapter on "other religions".
As David Wetsel notes, Pascal's treatment of the pagan religions is brisk: "As far as Pascal is concerned, the demise of the pagan religions of antiquity speaks for itself. Those pagan religions which still exist in the New World, in India, and in Africa are not even worth a second glance. They are obviously the work of superstition and ignorance and have nothing in them which might interest 'les gens habiles' ('clever men')[19]"[20] Islam warrants more attention, being distinguished from paganism (which for Pascal presumably includes all the other non-Christian religions) by its claim to be a revealed religion. Nevertheless, Pascal concludes that the religion founded by Mohammed can on several counts be shown to be devoid of divine authority, and that therefore, as a path to the knowledge of God, it is as much a dead end as paganism.[21] Judaism, in view of its close links to Christianity, he deals with elsewhere.[22]
The many-religions objection is taken more seriously by some later apologists of the wager, who argue that, of the rival options, only those awarding infinite happiness affect the wager's dominance. In the opinion of these apologists "finite, semi-blissful promises such as Kali's or Odin's" therefore drop out of consideration.[23] Also, the infinite bliss that the rival conception of God offers has to be mutually exclusive. If Christ's promise of bliss can be attained concurrently with Jehovah's and Allah's (all three being identified as the God of Abraham), there is no conflict in the decision matrix in the case where the cost of believing in the wrong conception of God is neutral (limbo/purgatory/spiritual death), although this would be countered with an infinite cost in the case where not believing in the correct conception of God results in punishment (hell).[23]
Furthermore, ecumenical interpretations of the Wager[24] argue that it could even be suggested that believing in a generic God, or a god by the wrong name, is acceptable so long as that conception of God has similar essential characteristics of the conception of God considered in Pascal's Wager (perhaps the God of Aristotle). Proponents of this line of reasoning suggest that either all of the conceptions of God or gods throughout history truly boil down to just a small set of "genuine options",[25] or that if the Pascal's Wager can simply bring a person to believe in "generic theism" it has done its job.[26]

[edit]Argument from inauthentic belief
Some critics argue that Pascal's Wager could only ever be an argument for feigning belief, which is dishonest. In addition, it is absurd to think that God, being just and omniscient, would not be able to see through this deceptive strategy on behalf of the "believer", nullifying the benefits of the wager.[27]
It is to be noted that these criticisms are concerned not with the validity of the wager itself, but with its possible aftermath, namely that a person who has been convinced of the overwhelming odds in favor of belief still finds himself unable to sincerely believe. Therefore, this critique is tangential to the thrust of the wager. What critics are objecting to is Pascal's subsequent advice to an unbeliever who, having concluded that the only rational way to wager is in favor of God's existence, points out, reasonably enough, that this by no means makes him a believer. His hypothetical unbeliever complains, "I am so made that I cannot believe. What would you have me do?"[28] Pascal, far from suggesting that God can be deceived by outward show, says that God does not regard it at all: "God looks only at what is inward."[29] For a person who is already convinced of the odds of the wager but cannot seem to put his heart into the belief, Pascal offers his practical advice.
Explicitly addressing the question of inability to believe, Pascal argues that if the wager is valid, the inability to believe is irrational, and therefore must be caused by feelings: "your inability to believe, because reason compels you to [believe] and yet you cannot, [comes] from your passions." This inability, therefore, can be overcome by diminishing these irrational sentiments: "Learn from those who were bound like you. . . . Follow the way by which they began: that is by doing everything as if they believed, by taking holy water, by having Masses said, etc. Naturally, even this will make you believe and will dull you. -'But this is what I am afraid of.'- And why? What have you to lose?"[30]
Following in a similar vein, some other critics have objected to Pascal's Wager on the grounds that he wrongly assumes what type of epistemic character God would likely value in his rational creatures if he existed. More specifically, Richard Carrier has objected by positing an alternative conception of God that prefers his creatures to be honest inquirers and disapproves of thoughtless or feigned belief:
“ Suppose there is a god who is watching us and choosing which souls of the deceased to bring to heaven, and this god really does want only the morally good to populate heaven. He will probably select from only those who made a significant and responsible effort to discover the truth. . .Therefore, only such people can be sufficiently moral and trustworthy to deserve a place in heaven — unless God wishes to fill heaven with the morally lazy, irresponsible, or untrustworthy. ”
—Richard Carrier, The End of Pascal's Wager: Only Nontheists Go to Heaven[31]
However, as already noted above, nowhere in the establishment of the wager does Pascal appeal to feigned belief; God, being omniscient, would not be subject to such trickery and unwittingly reward the disingenuous. Rather, in a passage following the establishment of the wager, Pascal addresses a hypothetical person who has already weighed the rationality of believing in God through the wager, being convinced by it but unable to sincerely believe. Again, as noted above, Pascal offers him a way to escape his irrational sentiment compelling him to withhold belief in God after the validity of the wager has been rationally conceded, namely by applying oneself to spiritual discipline, study, and community.
So, this "alternative" scenario of God valuing rational belief and honest inquiry which is offered by Carrier and other critics is actually not much different from Pascal's own formulation of the scenario. Indeed, Pascal is unabashed in his criticism of people who are apathetic towards considering the issue of whether God exists. In note 194, he retorts: "This carelessness in a matter which concerns themselves, their eternity, their all, moves me more to anger than pity; it astonishes and shocks me; it is to me monstrous." Far from glorifying blind irrationality, one of the chief aims of Pascal's arguments in the Pensees was to shake people out of their ignorant complacency so they could rationally approach this most crucial existential matter. Pascal says in note 225: "Atheism shows strength of mind, but only to a certain degree." Unbelievers who persistently endeavor in an honest, rational effort to search for the truth are commended by Pascal, to the exclusion of those who are dismissive and disingenuous.

[Eleutheria]

The question is : Why not god show his face to us ?

At least we see some picture of UFO, some evidence in history that UFO existed .... TAKE THAT GOD O_o ...

....reading over this thread, I find that I'm glad I'm not one of you.

See, the thing is that I won't actively attempt to claim your beliefs are false, debunk them with a bunch of strawmen and insults, and post a billion posts about why you're wrong. I simply don't care as much about debunking your "theories". But for some reason, all of you people seem hell-bent on proving me wrong in what I believe.

There's no evidence that God hasn't existed? Here's the one thing. The Bible is absolutely ridiculously accurate. It's had over 40 authors over 4000 years, and they don't contradict. There is some slight disparity between the Old Testament and New Testament, but the New Testament represents God's new covenant-the old one was more of a test of humanity. Now, researchers do have copies of the Bible from over 2000 years ago, and they still match what the Bible says now. And there were hundreds of witnesses to these events-even ancient historians mention Jesus. And yes, ancient historians that weren't Christians. That's probably some evidence that he existed, don't you think?

And as for your question, I'll answer that. Would you want a servant or worker who had no faith in you? They only supported you because they knew you were a good worker? They had no trust in you?

No, probably not. Faith is important.

No, I'm not here to have an argument, I just wanted to debunk the ridiculous claim that there isn't any evidence throughout history that Jesus didn't exist.

There are hundreds of contradictions, heres just a few to mention from genesis:
GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.

GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.

GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.

GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time.
GE 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later.

GE 1:28 God encourages reproduction.
LE 12:1-8 God requires purification rites following childbirth which, in effect, makes childbirth a sin. (Note: The period for purification following the birth of a daughter is twice that for a son.)

GE 1:31 God was pleased with his creation.
GE 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation.
(Note: That God should be displeased is inconsistent with the concept of omniscience.)

GE 2:4, 4:26, 12:8, 22:14-16, 26:25 God was already known as "the Lord" (Jahveh or Jehovah) much earlier than the time of Moses.
EX 6:2-3 God was first known as "the Lord" (Jahveh or Jehovah) at the time of the Egyptian Bondage, during the life of Moses.

GE 2:17 Adam was to die the very day that he ate the forbidden fruit.
GE 5:5 Adam lived 930 years.

GE 2:15-17, 3:4-6 It is wrong to want to be able to tell good from evil.
HE 5:13-14 It is immature to be unable to tell good from evil.

[Nightkill the Emperor]

Stop shifting goalposts. You said you can't believe two religions at the same time. Shinto-Buddhism proves you incorrect.

Shinto-Buddhism is neither Shinto, nor Buddhism.

It's not it's own religion, however.

[Katganistan]

Something else that affected me: The Bible was boring and very poorly written. Didn't they know how to build excitement in the B.C. era? I read my physics book with more enthusiasm.

The bible was written BC?
I know that a part of it was... yet that part is the Torah

BCE, for the atheists.

[Dyakovo]

No proof that there isn't a homunculus residing within my brain.
No proof that my heart isn't a mutated radish.
No proof I'm not Samuel L. Jackson.

See why that's not a very good argument?

Then neither is "no proof that there is a god".

It works both ways.

Except for the detail that the ones claiming that there is a god have the burden of proof. They're the ones making the extraordinary claim.

[Eleutheria]

And besides (to the atheists) there is always Pascal's Wager. Look it up.

Pascal's wager is bullshit. Maybe you should familiarize yourself with it.

It is absolute bullshit, it would take a cynical or stupid god to think "Hmmm i know (because im omniscient) that man is just hedging his bets by pretending to believe in me in the hope of the eternal paradise i might offer, but ill let him go to paradise anyway"

[Dyakovo]

I was never brainwashed into believing magical sky faeries exist.

If you didn't notice, or failed to read, as so many Christians do their own scriptural writings, the question wasn't addressed to you, so kindly bugger off.

What is 'God'? A shared delusion.

I used to be an atheist and talked exactly like those people above¹, and overall I acted like an asshole to religious people.²

Good thing I ended that.³

1: So what happened? Did you get a lobotomy?
2: Okay.
3: Not really... Losing the ability to think critically is not a good thing.