Why atheists must believe in God

[Dyakovo]

You find what faith does to people hilarious?

Not at all. I've no idea where you derived that from what I said.

I was actually referring to the majority of hyper progressive liberals, who for some odd reason, feel the need to "progress" in such a manner that is completely blind and unsustainable.

What does this have to do with the topic at hand?

[Vazdania]

Not at all. I've no idea where you derived that from what I said.

I was actually referring to the majority of hyper progressive liberals, who for some odd reason, feel the need to "progress" in such a manner that is completely blind and unsustainable.

What does this have to do with the topic at hand?

It was an answer to a question my dear sir.

[Sun Wukong]

Not at all. I've no idea where you derived that from what I said.

I was actually referring to the majority of hyper progressive liberals, who for some odd reason, feel the need to "progress" in such a manner that is completely blind and unsustainable.

What does this have to do with the topic at hand?

It's Vaz.

So long as we're off topic, is it wrong that I'm seriously turned on by your posts now that you've changed your avatar?

[Menassa]

Isaiah 40:22: "There is One God who is dwelling above the circle of the earth." Isaiah wasn't a scientist, and the Jews knew nothing of the world outside of their homeland.

A circle is in no way an oval-shaped sphere.
The very fact that he says 'above' proves that he is talking about a flat circular earth.
I think the idea that the earth was flat and circular was probably quite common back then, I mean a triangle or a square sounds like a funny shape for our world.

My friend, do you know what happens when you shoot an arrow into a tree and paint a target around it?

You hit a bullseye every time.

[Furious Grandmothers]

You find what faith does to people hilarious?

Not at all. I've no idea where you derived that from what I said.

I was actually referring to the majority of hyper progressive liberals, who for some odd reason, feel the need to "progress" in such a manner that is completely blind and unsustainable.

From your choice to use the adjective "blindly", because this thread concerns an exclusive binary, either atheists or theists, and no prizes for guessing which the adjective applies better to. Apparently it's the tangent of hyper progressive liberals you're running on, which isn't even related to this thread.

[Dyakovo]

What does this have to do with the topic at hand?

It's Vaz.

So long as we're off topic, is it wrong that I'm seriously turned on by your posts now that you've changed your avatar?

No, definitely not.

[Merconitonitopia]

All I got out of this was "We do not know if things are real, therefore God exists!"

[Dyakovo]

All I got out of this was "We do not know if things are real, therefore God exists!"

There wasn't much more...

[Corsahnim]

I will get mischaracterized for this badly...

It says in the bible "Judge not, and ye shalt not be judged". Why did I quote the Bible? Because God doesn't even follow his own rules. It says in that quote that you shouldn't be a hypocrite, yet, God is his own hypocrite. You get born, learn things, and commit sins on a daily basis. And then, at the end of life, you basically go to hell for committing said biblical atrocities. That is why people are confused about worshiping a single God, it's too contradictory, making people think like this. That is my unrelated-to-science view of it.

[Xirtam]

A circle is in no way an oval-shaped sphere.
The very fact that he says 'above' proves that he is talking about a flat circular earth.
I think the idea that the earth was flat and circular was probably quite common back then, I mean a triangle or a square sounds like a funny shape for our world.

My friend, do you know what happens when you shoot an arrow into a tree and paint a target around it?

You hit a bullseye every time.

I don't think that's the best description of what he did.
More like shot an arrow, hit the outer ring, then looked at the target with fucked up eyesight and said "I think that's a bullseye, or at least close enough".

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Not sure if OP is serious or just confused.

[Dyakovo]

Not sure if OP is serious or just confused.

I'm going with "seriously confused".

[Xirtam]

Not sure if OP is serious or just confused.

Insane.

[The Batorys]

If you ask an atheist why they disavow belief in God, they will undoubtably cite either their reason or science. Here are some thing that need to be around in order for science to make sense. Possibly the most basic of these Absolute truth (Truth being that which conforms to reality)

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.

The entire study of any science depends on truth being absolute, but their is no atheistic justification for believing in it. It is ironic that those who say their alleged disbelief in God is based on reason have absolutely no reason to believe in the very things on which they base their reason!

What do you think about this line of reasoning? I think it makes a lot of sense.

Ah, the whole "but what if reality is just a giant, shared illusion?" sophistry.

What if? The fun thing about it being a giant, shared illusion is that it doesn't matter if it is. We experience it, and have no way of experiencing some other version, so we can simply redefine reality as the illusion which we collectively perceive, and then get back to doing things that matter.

[San]

Ah, the whole "but what if reality is just a giant, shared illusion?" sophistry.

jaden smith wrote a far more entertaining version.

[Phoenixfox]

Not sure if OP is serious or just confused.

Not confused at all. I thought I outlined my thought process pretty clearly. It seems you guys are the confused ones, cant seem interpret what I'm saying correctly.

[Dyakovo]

Not sure if OP is serious or just confused.

Not confused at all. I thought I outlined my thought process pretty clearly. It seems you guys are the confused ones, cant seem interpret what I'm saying correctly.

That would be because what you're saying has no connection what-so-ever to reality.

[Zottistan]

I believe in neither God nor absolute truth. Keep trying.

[Cosumar]

If you ask an atheist why they disavow belief in God, they will undoubtably cite either their reason or science. Here are some thing that need to be around in order for science to make sense. Possibly the most basic of these Absolute truth (Truth being that which conforms to reality)

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.

The entire study of any science depends on truth being absolute, but their is no atheistic justification for believing in it. It is ironic that those who say their alleged disbelief in God is based on reason have absolutely no reason to believe in the very things on which they base their reason!

What do you think about this line of reasoning? I think it makes a lot of sense.

Your argument would hold water if not for the fact that science operates not in absolute truths, but rather in observation and human reason.

There are no facts in science, only tested observations. Humans can only learn what humans have observed, thus human science is reactionary by nature. A reactionary method of learning will never yield absolute truths by its very definition. We might come up with our own constructs that work and operate within our own limitations and bounds, but the reality is that there is likely something that we've overlooked that muddles our understanding.

The laws of physics are challenged and broken every day without us even realizing or thinking about it, and yet they're still considered laws. You see, a scientific law is nothing more than an established theory that has returned a predictable outcome the majority of the time.

Science is inherently based in faith, but it is not of the same variety as a religion. It is subject to scrutiny, testing, and observation, and it can be held and examined under a lens. It can be improved, and even rewritten, if our observations and perceptions change through our testing and experimentation. The faith that science is grounded in is a belief that it will always grow and expand, and that we will always observe more and learn more. It's a belief in our current models and laws as the best that humanity has been able to observe and rationalize thus far.

Religions are grounded in a different sort of faith. Religious faith is that of an unchanging world or a world that has always been. It's the belief in a higher power and a belief that such higher power must be recognized and worshiped. Religion cannot be placed under a lens, or be tested, or even be observed. It is entirely intangible. Religious faith stems from an intangible and emotional source, while scientific faith stems from the opposite: tangible observations and rational thought.

Neither are better than the other, and neither is mutually exclusive of the other. They are simply different things, and comparing them is to not only lack understanding or knowledge, but indicative of an unfortunate misconception of humanity itself. We are observers. We attempt to solve problems within our realm of perception.

There are no absolute truths in science, nor does science suggest that it has access to or knows any absolute truths. Religions do.

[Glasgia]

I think therefore I am, or something along those lines. If I exist, every object I interact with must also exist - Or I could not interact with it. If you drew out a little spider web from this, with me interacting with one object or person and then it or them interacting with another thing, then it'd extent to almost every single object in the world. From here, we can assume the existence of most objects. Then, by analysing the interactions with those objects, we can scientific conclusions about the functioning of this world and its universe - Conclusions which have been held to test and proven, falling neatly within the rules of science.

Of course, I'm not one to try and change your beliefs. However, I do not appreciate it when you attempt to change others based upon an illogical conclusion that cannot be applied to our world.

[Sebtopiaris]

My thoughts on this thread.

[Conserative Morality]

To quote Nietzsche, "There are no facts, only interpretations."

Not all atheists found their belief on the rock of science, although those that do also generally hold the belief that the world around them is real or so close to it that it doesn't matter in practical terms whether it fits a specific, narrow definition of real.

[Zottistan]

I think therefore I am, or something along those lines. If I exist, every object I interact with must also exist - Or I could not interact with it. If you drew out a little spider web from this, with me interacting with one object or person and then it or them interacting with another thing, then it'd extent to almost every single object in the world. From here, we can assume the existence of most objects. Then, by analysing the interactions with those objects, we can scientific conclusions about the functioning of this world and its universe - Conclusions which have been held to test and proven, falling neatly within the rules of science.

Of course, I'm not one to try and change your beliefs. However, I do not appreciate it when you attempt to change others based upon an illogical conclusion that cannot be applied to our world.

Interacting with something doesn't necessarily mean it exists. People interact with things in dreams and hallucinations that don't exist.

[Glasgia]

I think therefore I am, or something along those lines. If I exist, every object I interact with must also exist - Or I could not interact with it. If you drew out a little spider web from this, with me interacting with one object or person and then it or them interacting with another thing, then it'd extent to almost every single object in the world. From here, we can assume the existence of most objects. Then, by analysing the interactions with those objects, we can scientific conclusions about the functioning of this world and its universe - Conclusions which have been held to test and proven, falling neatly within the rules of science.

Of course, I'm not one to try and change your beliefs. However, I do not appreciate it when you attempt to change others based upon an illogical conclusion that cannot be applied to our world.

Interacting with something doesn't necessarily mean it exists. People interact with things in dreams and hallucinations that don't exist.

But tell me this: In your dreams, can you actually feel them? Can you actually touch them and interact within the laws of physics? In the vast majority of dreams, touch is a missing sense alongside smell and taste. Even in lucid dreams, dreamer often cannot experience texture or another sense.

[Breadknife]

It's the 21st century. I'm not going to stand on a hill and preach to a crowd of sheperds. The internet is the new frontier to spread God's word.

^ And you know what else people do on the internet?.......... Think about it for a moment........

Banking.

Something like that, anyway.