Why atheists must believe in God

[Czechanada]

Buddhists don't believe in any gods. Thus, they are atheists.

Psst, depends on the Buddhist sect.

Trust me, it's even MORE confusing than the various beliefs in Christianity.

Don't some strands of Buddhism have devas and what not?

[Charellia]

Science disagrees with these so called "scientists".

Science is only science when most scientists agree with the science. Most scientists do not agree on a single origin theory for the Big Bang. So scientists disagrees with this so called "science".

No, science is a field of study which follows the scientific method. Individual scientists don't have to agree on anything to make something science or not.

[A War Lord]

Ah. but if we are a part of the universe, and not put here from a source outside of it, then yes, we are the universe. A leaf is part of a tree because it grows off of it.

Yes, a part, but not the whole thing.

If the Universe were conscious, then we'd be talking about the most uncaring entity to have ever lived.

Well, it would have no reason to care. It's got four forces and (possibly) infinite space to take care of, it doesn't have time for that negligible little lump of matter floating around another, higher-energy lump of matter, and especially not for the infinitesimal variations in matter and energy distributions on the surface of that lump of matter.

Ok. What in the universe studies itself (in any magnitude)? Nothing. We may be the anomaly, or we may not be from this universe. It is strange so we study it.

[Phoenixfox]

There was no "sudden appearance" of God. He is an eternal, timeless entity. His "powers" that you mock are know different than the laws of science that you abide by. He controls those laws, that is his power...he CREATED those laws

That makes no sense, far less sense than the Big Bang theory. "He was just there" is a pathetic cop out answer.

And why not mock his "power"? I haven't seen him so shit with them, and my apparent mockery is not being silenced or disproven.

How is it any less of a cop out than "the matter that initiated the big bang was 'just there'?"

All the beauty that we see in the world and in the Universe. A supernova. The birth of a child. The diversity of life in a tropical forest. The water cycle. All these things are examples of his power. The wonder of his power surrounds us every day. Science strives to understand how God's creation works.

[Granadeseret]

A scientific process is far more believable than the sudden appearance of a sky wizard with endless magic powers.

There was no "sudden appearance" of God. He is an eternal, timeless entity. His "powers" that you mock are know different than the laws of science that you abide by. He controls those laws, that is his power...he CREATED those laws

That is the absolute worst case of special pleading I have ever seen. You're basically requiring an entity that ignores everything we understand about the world. Not to mention, flies in the face of everything else you're asserting.

A. A timeless entity can not, by definition, DO anything, since all decisions require at least two distinct temporal states.
B. If you assert a highly complex being with infinite cosmic powers can exist without a creator, but then assert that a simple clump of the absolute simplest form of existence can't, then you better take a good long look at the the logic used there.
C. The Supernatural can be made up by anybody at any time with any traits they please, since it is not bound by any information that any human being can observe. As such, making any claim about it is just a good as any other claim.
D. To answer your earlier question about why it is alright for atheists to disprove of all religions while you disprove of all but one, it is because they are being intellectually consistent while you are not. You dismiss all the other deities (who fit the evidence just as well) other then yours, just as the athiest does, but for that one idea alone you make a logical exception. Tell me, explain how you even know there was but one god. Why no three? or ten? or forty-two? The evidence you suggests, even if one does accept it as true, gets you nowhere beyond a noninterventionist, faceless Deism, and to tie that down to any specific idea of a deity, or even one idea of a deity period, requires you to apply a double standard of reasoning to different perceptions of said divine force, which an athirst simply doesn't do.

[Saint Kitten]

Excellent. One star for you
Now, do you know what Buddhist believe in (or the lack of belief in)

Depends on the Buddhist.

True but unifying ideal that makes them a Buddhist is what is was asking for.

[Nord Amour]

I'm going to assume that you are t*******, because even Wendy Wright seems to have more understanding of the scientific method than this. There are NO absolutes in science. Everything is tested, reviewed, and then tested again.
The method also prevents anything that has not been supported with evidence from getting by unchecked. This is the reason that I am an atheist. My reason is the lack of evidence.
EDIT:

Science can tell us almost any trait we want to know about anything, it can tell us the size, shape, weight, color, temperature, density and even the molecular structure of an object, but none of these things even matter if we can not be sure that the object even exists. Science is irrelevant if absolute truth does not exist.

Why?

[Vashta Nerada]

No. It bends to other science. I'm very well aware what science is and how it is expanded upon by those who study it. Your adamant desire to believe that all scientist agree that the Big Bang theory in its current explanation is sad. There are still thousands of scientists still arguing over a theory that doesn't make any sense to begin with. Your beef is with them, not with me.

"there are thousands of us!"
but you still can't provide an example.

fucking thousands, man!

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg1 ... sense.html
http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp
http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf107/sf107p03.htm
http://phys.org/news76314500.html
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=17752
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

Happy now? Read up.

[Shnercropolis]

Yes, a part, but not the whole thing.Well, it would have no reason to care. It's got four forces and (possibly) infinite space to take care of, it doesn't have time for that negligible little lump of matter floating around another, higher-energy lump of matter, and especially not for the infinitesimal variations in matter and energy distributions on the surface of that lump of matter.

If the universe was conscious, I doubt it would have to "take care" of the four forces any more than we humans need to consciously take care of the various organelles in our cells.

Hey man, don't knock the universe. He got really fat really fast 13.7 billion years ago and he's been watching his body ever since.

[Xirtam]

Science disagrees with these so called "scientists".

Science is only science when most scientists agree with the science. Most scientists do not agree on a single origin theory for the Big Bang. So scientists disagrees with this so called "science".

No, truth is independent of the mind, if you disagree with science you are not really a scientist you are just masquerading as one.
All the real scientists know because they have paid attention to the evidence that the big bang theory is correct and that there is no evidence for there being anything before the big bang.

[Saint Kitten]

I'm going to assume that you are trolling, because even Wendy Wright seems to have more understanding of the scientific method than this. There are NO absolutes in science. Everything is tested, reviewed, and then tested again.
The method also prevents anything that has not been supported with evidence from getting by unchecked. This is the reason that I am an atheist. My reason is the lack of evidence.

Calling out trolls is illegal now btw.
Edit: unless it's in a report

[Thafoo]

Buddhists don't believe in any gods. Thus, they are atheists.

Psst, depends on the Buddhist sect.

Trust me, it's even MORE confusing than the various beliefs in Christianity.

Funny how Siddharta Gautama stated repeatedly that he is in no way shape or form a deity or god.

[NERVUN]

Psst, depends on the Buddhist sect.

Trust me, it's even MORE confusing than the various beliefs in Christianity.

At least with Christianity there is a single common theme. God is real, Jesus died for us all, and we all have a Bible*. I don't even know where to begin with Buddhism.

*Maaaaaybe, Christianity is confusing too.

[Thafoo]

I'm going to assume that you are trolling, because even Wendy Wright seems to have more understanding of the scientific method than this. There are NO absolutes in science. Everything is tested, reviewed, and then tested again.
The method also prevents anything that has not been supported with evidence from getting by unchecked. This is the reason that I am an atheist. My reason is the lack of evidence.

Calling out trolls is illegal now btw.
Edit: unless it's in a report

It's not illegal if it's used in conjunction with an actual argument iirc. It's illegal if you just say "you're a troll" and leave it at that.

[The Dominion Of Deathcoria]

I call nihilism!

[Philosophii]

"there are thousands of us!"
but you still can't provide an example.

fucking thousands, man!

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg1 ... sense.html
http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp
http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf107/sf107p03.htm
http://phys.org/news76314500.html
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=17752
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

Happy now? Read up.

oh. my god.
the big bang has problems with it.

NEWS AT 9.

this doesn't make it any less valid, and most of those problems brought up are being researched by the same scientists who brought them up. you see, the scientific community isn't the type to plug its ears and shout "LALALALA" as soon as a problem is brought up.

[Shnercropolis]

At least with Christianity there is a single common theme. God is real, Jesus died for us all, and we all have a Bible*. I don't even know where to begin with Buddhism.

*Maaaaaybe, Christianity is confusing too.

I've met a guy who said he was a Christian but that Jesus didn't exist.

[Vashta Nerada]

Science is only science when most scientists agree with the science. Most scientists do not agree on a single origin theory for the Big Bang. So scientists disagrees with this so called "science".

No, truth is independent of the mind, if you disagree with science you are not really a scientist you are just masquerading as one.
All the real scientists know because they have paid attention to the evidence that the big bang theory is correct and that there is no evidence for there being anything before the big bang.

Then that means all pseudo-science is real too by that line of reasoning. Just because a few scientists say that it's science makes it science. Genius!

[Czechanada]

Alright, OP, answer me this.

If God exists, then why would he allow religion to be mocked in the film Life of Brian?

[Saint Kitten]

Calling out trolls is illegal now btw.
Edit: unless it's in a report

It's not illegal if it's used in conjunction with an actual argument iirc. It's illegal if you just say "you're a troll" and leave it at that.

I'm still new to that. Thanks for clearing that up for me *gives you the star that was meant for Phoenixfox*

[Vashta Nerada]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg1 ... sense.html
http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp
http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf107/sf107p03.htm
http://phys.org/news76314500.html
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=17752
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

Happy now? Read up.

oh. my god.
the big bang has problems with it.

NEWS AT 9.

this doesn't make it any less valid, and most of those problems brought up are being researched by the same scientists who brought them up. you see, the scientific community isn't the type to plug its ears and shout "LALALALA" as soon as a problem is brought up.

No. Their just the kind to spend years arguing over the same issue over and over again, which is what I've been trying to say and you've been trying to avoid. Put five scientists in a room, and each one of them is going to have their own idea of how the big bang started. That's the issue. They themselves don't even agree on a subject they've been trying to promote as fact.

[Sun Wukong]

Psst, depends on the Buddhist sect.

Trust me, it's even MORE confusing than the various beliefs in Christianity.

Don't some strands of Buddhism have devas and what not?

Indeed. It's more accurate to say that you can be a Buddhist without believing in a god then to say Buddhism is atheistic. But... whatever. OP's not exactly a scholar.

On an interesting note: The Devas and Asuras appear to be the same two groups as their distant Indo-European cousins, the Vanir and Æsir. "Deva" is also related to the Persian word Dev (as is Asura to Ahura), and thus the Christian term "Devil."

[The Flood]

lack of belief in a deity

Therefore Buddhist's are atheists.

Not always. Disbelief in deities is not a requirement of Buddhism, so some Buddhists combine other religions or personal spirituality with Buddhism.

[MERIZoC]

Alright, OP, answer me this.

If God exists, then why would he allow religion to be mocked in the film Life of Brian?

This

[Phoenixfox]

There was no "sudden appearance" of God. He is an eternal, timeless entity. His "powers" that you mock are know different than the laws of science that you abide by. He controls those laws, that is his power...he CREATED those laws

That is the absolute worst case of special pleading I have ever seen. You're basically requiring an entity that ignores everything we understand about the world. Not to mention, flies in the face of everything else you're asserting.

A. A timeless entity can not, by definition, DO anything, since all decisions require at least two distinct temporal states.
B. If you assert a highly complex being with infinite cosmic powers can exist without a creator, but then assert that a simple clump of the absolute simplest form of existence can't, then you better take a good long look at the the logic used there.
C. The Supernatural can be made up by anybody at any time with any traits they please, since it is not bound by any information that any human being can observe. As such, making any claim about it is just a good as any other claim.
D. To answer your earlier question about why it is alright for atheists to disprove of all religions while you disprove of all but one, it is because they are being intellectually consistent while you are not. You dismiss all the other deities (who fit the evidence just as well) other then yours, just as the athiest does, but for that one idea alone you make a logical exception. Tell me, explain how you even know there was but one god. Why no three? or ten? or forty-two? The evidence you suggests, even if one does accept it as true, gets you nowhere beyond a noninterventionist, faceless Deism, and to tie that down to any specific idea of a deity, or even one idea of a deity period, requires you to apply a double standard of reasoning to different perceptions of said divine force, which an athirst simply doesn't do.

Wow, good points. I will have to think about these some more to decide how to dispute them.