Are you an Atheist/Believer?

[wolf5370]

This is a fairly standard argument - but it is not an argument against or evidence that there is no God. It is simply a list of things certain religious people got wrong.

Simply put there is no evidence, even underwhelming evidence, that God does not exist

..

Yes, my arguments are fairly standard. But every single thing I listed was contributed to god or satan, before science came along, and gave an explanation.

Just so - but not by God - by human beings that used their positions in their given religions to portray a divine knowledge to which there was obviously none. This proves only these people were mistaken - and thereby the texts and religion that formed around those words were wrong. Newton said that if you keep applying the right amount of force an object will continue to accelerate infinitely, this was understood to be true for 400 hundred years until Einstein clarified Newton and showed that mass increases with velocity, so that it can not actually exceed light speed due to infinite mass (and thus immoveable my any force). Newton was wrong (and incidentally so was Einstein for particles that have no rest mass - such as light photons). So, does this mean mechanics and kinetics do not exist because the "leaders" at the time were wrong?

You say there is no evidence that god does not exist.

Ok then! Where is he, what has he done? I asked in my post that you quoted, for believers to show some evidence that god exist. Nobody has come with anything yet. You say there is god, and it ends there. But this is child like belief there is Santa, because the child has been tought that there is Santa.

Where is Dark Matter? Where is Gravity? Prove the existence of the super black hole at the centre of the universe.

What has he done? A believer would say everything - He created it (a more scientific believer might word it that He set in motion the events that brought everything into being - semantics perhaps). The thing is no one here I have seen has stated they have proof that there IS a God (I would think most believers would suggest that is the point of belief and faith); however, people such as yourself have stated that you have proof of the opposite. As to Santa, we all believe what we are told with respect to our beliefs - unless you have tested all those scientific theories yourself, you have believed what scientists have told you. Indeed it is much harder now to believe in science than before as we can see the effects of throwing a ball up and it coming back down again - we can not see the effects of Weak forces between quarks now can be - or even the existence of atoms - but we all believe they exist. By the way I have at no point said "There is a God" I have been very careful in my posts to not state my own position so that I can argue from either end as required - as I said before, the concept of "do you believe in God" is too vague and subjective to answer anyway unless one believes in nothing at all (including science) - as the very concept of "God" is an individual one - and I certainly wouldn't believe in someone else's concept of God .

Following your logic, there is no evidence that there is no god. Ok! How do you prove thst Santa Clause does not really exist. I say there is overwhelming evidence that he doesnt exist. Should I list my reasons why I believe that?

You can not, unless limits are defined. If you state that Santa lives on the North Pole, then perhaps an exhaustive search could show he doesn't - assuming those limits state that he is human and requires a house of some kind. You have given no evidence he does not exist - you have given evidence why not to trust religious texts and beliefs. Religion is not God and God is not religion. A car salesman can lie about the car, it does not mean the car does not exist.

Don't the faithful also have to have some burden of proof for their claims? I suppose they dont, faithfuls blindly believe. Atheist bring arguments to the table, faithful have nothing to offer.

I guess not - the point is that e religious person may try to foist his/her religion on you - then the onus is on them to sell you on it. A believer however, does not have to be religious at all or even concerned in any way with their own or other's beliefs. They only need then to prove it to themselves in a satisfactory manor; and who are you or I to tell them in what to believe. If someone came and said to you, "I can prove God exists" then yes they should present that proof - if they say "I can prove God doesn't exist" then likewise - if they simply say, "Well I believe" - then why would they need to prove it to anyone. Freedom of thought has to be the epitome of basic human right.

I give up now.

It is hopeless to argue with group of people who believe in talking snake, magic underware.

It was fun talking about it until some guy came along with a claim all atheists he has met are heroin addicts LOL

Yes agree I know many atheists and none are addicts - well one smokes a lot

See above in Blue - easier that way

Edited January 6, 2014 by wolf5370

[notmyself]

Very colourful

Limited allowed number of quotes within a post (6?) and it also makes it easier to read.

Yes I am aware of the principles you state, I even considered adding that to my post - but thought it was long enough . The argument against WAP is simply that it requires either remarkable luck or an awful lot of trial and error to make such an environment - after all we ARE here, are we not? (ignoring Descartes for now )

Luck would require there to be an objective or meaning would it not? For this reason I'll not bother commenting on SAP and we both have an issue with it anyway.

Unlike planetary systems, we only have one universe to look at so we cannot say it is fine tuned any more than a puddle can say the depression it resides in is perfectly shaped for it.

MWI certainly leaves open the multiverse proposition in any case. I would say it is very probable you know this but I shall quote and link for the possible interest of others....

The multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of infinite or finite possible universes (including the historical universe we consistently experience) that together comprise everything that exists and can exist: the entirety of space, time, matter, and energy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them. The term was coined in 1895 by the American philosopher and psychologist William James.[1] The various universes within the multiverse are sometimes called parallel universes.

The structure of the multiverse, the nature of each universe within it and the relationship between the various constituent universes, depend on the specific multiverse hypothesis considered. Multiple universes have been hypothesized in cosmology, physics, astronomy, religion, philosophy, transpersonal psychology and fiction, particularly in science fiction and fantasy. In these contexts, parallel universes are also called "alternative universes", "quantum universes", "interpenetrating dimensions", "parallel dimensions", "parallel worlds", "alternative realities", "alternative timelines", and "dimensional planes," among others.

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

I agree - and Chaos theory (with Heisenberg and Schrodinger) takes away our ability to determine that as time go on (or even now - given super-states). The question may really be, "Does it matter if there is one or not?" or maybe even, "If there is a God, does it matter if I know it or believe it? Does a nematode living in the water at the bottom of a discarded flowerpot need to know or believe I exist regardless of the fact that I could make decision that could destroy its universe entirely?"

We already know scientifically that everything around us is energy, however "solid" it feels - depending on the theory of the day, it could be a series of open or closed strings (with or without 11 dimension - M-Theory), super gravity, quantum loops, etc. So, in effect all we have believed for our whole species existence has been wrong - up until now.

As time has passed we have believed for various reasons and acted on those beliefs. Would it be fair to say that actions or inactions based on knowledge which is itself backed up by reason is a benefit to us as a species?

[sustento]

What evidence that there is no God?

What evidence that there is no Easter Bunny?

Or a 12' invisible elephant called Colin living in my shed. The list is endless.

Can you come and fetch him please? He's trampling my vegetable garden.

[JetsetBkk]

The question was: "Are you an Atheist/Believer?"

I used to think I was a Christian, until I thought more about it.

Then I thought I was agnostic, so I thought a bit more about it.

So then I thought I was an atheist.

Until I discovered the term "antitheist".

So that's what I am - I oppose any one who believes in the existence of any god or gods.

I believe in one thing only - the "Golden Rule", which is often included in religions.

But as far as I am concerned, it is the only rule that counts.

[pastafarian]

Most religious people are close to being atheists as they don't believe in any of the hundreds of other gods apart from their own, atheists just believe in one god less than they do.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[nidieunimaitre]

A man without a god, is like a fish without a bicycle.

[pastafarian]

I'm sure most believers will find this hard to believe, who needs god(s)?!

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[thailiketoo]

Proof is proof guys. How would you get Easter Eggs without the Easter Bunny. Chickens don't lay hard boiled colored eggs. Lets see ya explain that one?

[Shancloudy]

May God will touch the hearts of those who don't believe.

Edited January 7, 2014 by Shancloudy

[pastafarian]

Which god? You could be referring to one of many! If yahweh from the boible then I'd rather he didn't touch any part of me as that chap is a genocidal, egotistical, cruel, evil monster!

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Nayet]

May God will touch the hearts of those who don't believe.

Would be strange if he did all of a sudden, seeing how he has failed to do so for such a long time.

[sirineou]

May God will touch the hearts of those who don't believe.

May logic and reason enter the heads of those who believe

[Shancloudy]

May God will touch the hearts of those who don't believe.

May logic and reason enter the heads of those who believe

I will reply later after work.

Please wait. I'm too busy.

[NBD]

I'm a pretty devout atheist. I had a healthy contempt for believers at home, but like a few atheists I was a bit easier on Buddhism, thinking that it is more live-and-let-live, introverted and philosophical than the major monotheist religions which seem to cause all the trouble. Having seen it in action for a few years now I put it in the same category, a grand scale con designed to extract money from mewling simpletons who think it will benefit them, and that so long as they're giving money to the temple then all their shoddy behaviour is excused.

[thailiketoo]

My grandmother told me with a smug look as I shipped out to Vietnam that there were no atheists in foxholes. So a few weeks later there I was with Lek in a foxhole. I asked her, Lek are you a Christian?" She said, "I'm a Buddhist and the Buddha died 500 years before Christ so how could I be a Christian?" So much for grannies ideas.

[Shancloudy]

This movie made me feel the presence of God. It really answered some great questions about Gods love for us.

http://youtu.be/r4bj2nuUVbY

[nidieunimaitre]

Which god? You could be referring to one of many! If yahweh from the boible then I'd rather he didn't touch any part of me as that chap is a genocidal, egotistical, cruel, evil monster!

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

If ever a god is going to touch me, I hope it will be Afrodite.

[nidieunimaitre]

I'm a pretty devout atheist. I had a healthy contempt for believers at home, but like a few atheists I was a bit easier on Buddhism, thinking that it is more live-and-let-live, introverted and philosophical than the major monotheist religions which seem to cause all the trouble. Having seen it in action for a few years now I put it in the same category, a grand scale con designed to extract money from mewling simpletons who think it will benefit them, and that so long as they're giving money to the temple then all their shoddy behaviour is excused.

Western buddhism is of course rather wishy washy, and I don't share it's fundamental ideas.

But I can respect most of it, as it is not harmfull.

Could it be that western buddhism is much closer to the philosophy of budda, than asian buddhism?

Could that be the reason why so many posters resent thai buddhism so much, and grab every opportunity to bash thai buddhism?

Edited January 7, 2014 by nidieunimaitre

[Dimpys Dad]

May God will touch the hearts of those who don't believe.

After all, everyone has a heart, as you refer to it above. In the end (of discussion), the heart is where we ultimately decide whether or not to believe in God. I believe that God can touch, speak to, appeal to, anyone no matter how much some may resist. I hope and pray that those who are resisting are not trying to harden their heart against God, but are only being cautious that they don't buy into a bill of goods and that they truly do want to know that there is a higher authority than themselves as well as a higher authority than the charlatans and con-men who have hijacked the reality of God for their own personal gain.

Miracles can and do happen. It's unlikely that science has an explanation for such things.

[jaideeguy]

I say 'SHOW ME' and I might believe [anything].

[NBD]

I'm a pretty devout atheist. I had a healthy contempt for believers at home, but like a few atheists I was a bit easier on Buddhism, thinking that it is more live-and-let-live, introverted and philosophical than the major monotheist religions which seem to cause all the trouble. Having seen it in action for a few years now I put it in the same category, a grand scale con designed to extract money from mewling simpletons who think it will benefit them, and that so long as they're giving money to the temple then all their shoddy behaviour is excused.

Western buddhism is of course rather wishy washy, and I don't share it's fundamental ideas.

But I can respect most of it, as it is not harmfull.

Could it be that western buddhism is much closer to the philosophy of budda, than asian buddhism?

Could that be the reason why so many posters resent thai buddhism so much, and grab every opportunity to bash thai buddhism?

Possibly. I guess it could also be the kind of people that are attracted to Buddhism in the west, who are perhaps disenchanted with western religions, or at least open to other ideas, and generally more enquiring and open minded than those who blindly follow the religion they were brought up in. That's not to commend their conclusions, which I still think are rubbish. I assume by "wishy washy" you mean less willing to stone, burn or enslave non-believers?

I don't really have inclination to study what constitutes "true" Buddhism anymore than I have to study the true word of the Lord or will of Allah. It's more the implementation, the implementers and the followers who seem to be the problem. And the predictable way in which it is used simply as a way to extract money and revernce from the credulous and the desperate.

[thailiketoo]

I'm a pretty devout atheist. I had a healthy contempt for believers at home, but like a few atheists I was a bit easier on Buddhism, thinking that it is more live-and-let-live, introverted and philosophical than the major monotheist religions which seem to cause all the trouble. Having seen it in action for a few years now I put it in the same category, a grand scale con designed to extract money from mewling simpletons who think it will benefit them, and that so long as they're giving money to the temple then all their shoddy behaviour is excused.

Western buddhism is of course rather wishy washy, and I don't share it's fundamental ideas.

But I can respect most of it, as it is not harmfull.

Could it be that western buddhism is much closer to the philosophy of budda, than asian buddhism?

Could that be the reason why so many posters resent thai buddhism so much, and grab every opportunity to bash thai buddhism?

Possibly. I guess it could also be the kind of people that are attracted to Buddhism in the west, who are perhaps disenchanted with western religions, or at least open to other ideas, and generally more enquiring and open minded than those who blindly follow the religion they were brought up in. That's not to commend their conclusions, which I still think are rubbish. I assume by "wishy washy" you mean less willing to stone, burn or enslave non-believers?

I don't really have inclination to study what constitutes "true" Buddhism anymore than I have to study the true word of the Lord or will of Allah. It's more the implementation, the implementers and the followers who seem to be the problem. And the predictable way in which it is used simply as a way to extract money and revernce from the credulous and the desperate.

I would suggest,

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

[prighas]

I don't like to select a number because I think Dawkins himself is a fraud.

Sent from my iPhone using ThaiVisa app

[pastafarian]

Dawkins is a fraud because...?

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Maggusoil]

Seeing is believing, but no one would believe you. . . I feel sorry for those that have not seen the light

[Nayet]

Seeing is believing, but no one would believe you. . . I feel sorry for those that have not seen the light

When all else fails, condescend.

[Maggusoil]

Seeing is believing, but no one would believe you. . . I feel sorry for those that have not seen the light

When all else fails, condescend.

None of you have taken the right drugs

keep your failures to yourself

[notmyself]

Seeing is believing, but no one would believe you. . . I feel sorry for those that have not seen the light

The same would be true of alien abduction.

[Maggusoil]

Seeing is believing, but no one would believe you. . . I feel sorry for those that have not seen the light

The same would be true of alien abduction.

Yes, of course that would be true however, it has an opposite connotation of doubtful desirability

I haven't heard it is quite so pleasant

[Maggusoil]

God is a poor name for the nameless