Shop now Shop now Shop now See more Shop all Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now DIYED Shop now Shop Fire Shop now Shop now Shop now
Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

God Does Not Exist Because. . . (2)

This discussion has reached the maximum length permitted, and cannot accept new replies. Start a new discussion


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 76-100 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 17 Nov 2010 17:08:55 GMT
Spin says:
Darren: being "indifferent" as to whether something exists or not is not atheism. Atheism is a belief (although many atheists would claim it to be knowledge) not an "indifference" which can lead to a belief. "Indifference" is lazy agnosticism.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Nov 2010 17:12:43 GMT
the reasons bad things happen is because of moral and natural suffering. you see. starting with moral suffering, it is caused by peoples decisions, which is to do with free will. Godmgave us free will so that we could love him willingly, and he said that he would never take it away from us, because get real, this debate would be a lot more interesting if people believed in a God who would take away our free will. secoundly, natural suffering is caused by the devil, who, until the rapture controls the earth

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Nov 2010 17:17:26 GMT
"MarmiteMan says:
That's your choice. Are you telling me to Go Away as I do not believe in deities, ghosts, fairies and religion/spiritualism? If all non-believers did so, you would just be posting with like-minded persons and there would be no real discussion, only nodding agreement in a members-only club."

Yes, but I'm curious why a person who doesn't believe, or lacks belief in something, would want to spend time of a forum that is concentrated on that very subject! :-)

I don't think any amount of logical arguments are going to hold weight with someone's belief systems. BTW, Certainly not telling you to go away, but I think it's curious that some atheists have mentioned in the past that they appear to have chased this or that person away, because they couldn't answer an argument...

"MarmiteMan says:
PS - concur with the footballers-are-overpaid argument. Am now far less interested in football than pre-Sky Takeover & Bosman Ruling era, and am not in the Football threads either. But that's another story."

:-)

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Nov 2010 17:18:21 GMT
MarmiteMan says:
Okay, I herewith accept that you are not a theist. However, I would disagree that Sciences and the study thereof precludes the study of religion. That would fall under Sociology, Social-anthropology, History, Archaeology and, at a push, Theosophy. Religion, however, could indeed deny the Sciences if one were fervent enough (qv. US Neo-Cons' Intelligent Design vs. Darwinism).

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Nov 2010 17:22:44 GMT
why do people always have to see it as a science vs religion thing? i think that science and religion work well together...

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Nov 2010 17:23:54 GMT
Last edited by the author on 17 Nov 2010 17:25:14 GMT
Oh please. Thrill me with your acumen.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Nov 2010 17:24:22 GMT
Pendragon says:
Hmmm

Are you looking for nomination to be Two? Did you see the recent Caviezel/McKellen remake?

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Nov 2010 17:29:46 GMT
Pendragon says:
crescent

You said "until the rapture". What is that?

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Nov 2010 17:36:24 GMT
MarmiteMan says:
Yes, enlighten us, please.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Nov 2010 17:37:27 GMT
"Spin says:
Darren: being "indifferent" as to whether something exists or not is not atheism. Atheism is a belief (although many atheists would claim it to be knowledge) not an "indifference" which can lead to a belief. "Indifference" is lazy agnosticism."

Hi Spin... I think you'll find most atheists here would argue Atheism isn't a belief system, just a lack of belief in [a] "God"

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Nov 2010 17:59:27 GMT
Spin says:
While some claim atheism to be a belief that there is no deity, others claim it is a lack of belief in a deity. Which is it? Surely the corallary of a "lack of belief" is a "belief" negating the original belief? Is a "lack of belief" a belief? I don;t think so. To say one lacks a belief in a deity is simply to say one believes (ie has a belief) that a deity does not exist. Atheism is, therefore, a belief system, no matter how simplified it is.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Nov 2010 18:05:12 GMT
Last edited by the author on 17 Nov 2010 18:06:48 GMT
Spin,

The 'lack of belief' is always trawled out whenever an atheist is asked to prove or give evidence that there is no deity. It is the philosphical equivalent of putting your hands over your ears and saying "not listening, not listening".

Perhaps if I start saying I don't believe that god does not exist, then I will stop being pestered for evidence.

Wayne

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Nov 2010 18:21:45 GMT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Nov 2010 18:32:36 GMT
The Monkees singing, 'Now I'm a believer' sprung into my mind just then.

One of the things that should be considered is the definitions of faith and belief as they are often used interchangeably, but I think they mean different things.

Wayne

PS I just thought of this: surely 'I don't believe I can complete this crossword puzzle' is the same as 'I believe that I can't complete this crossword puzzle' [if you knew me, you'd know how true both statements are, I am more of a Killer Sudoku man :D]

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Nov 2010 21:35:53 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Nov 2010 21:38:01 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Nov 2010 21:47:45 GMT
Pendragon says:
Wayne

ROFL

An atheist is a person who does not believe in god. Get over it.

You may have noticed that I have never asked for the evidence that vexes you. That's because I accept that there isn't any. Do you?

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Nov 2010 21:55:56 GMT
Pendragon says:
"Same question to you Pendragon, if you've an absense of belief in Religion and a God, why do you come to a Religion Discussion forum."

Actually, Darren, now that I reflect upon the rather pointless discussion on the meaning of the word "atheist", I am beginning to wonder myself. Maybe I'll articulate it one day, but not this day.

How about you?

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Nov 2010 22:07:46 GMT
"Pendragon says:
"Same question to you Pendragon, if you've an absense of belief in Religion and a God, why do you come to a Religion Discussion forum."

Actually, Darren, now that I reflect upon the rather pointless discussion on the meaning of the word "atheist", I am beginning to wonder myself. Maybe I'll articulate it one day, but not this day.

How about you?"

You seem like an interesting diverse bunch of people to engage with :-)

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Nov 2010 05:39:56 GMT
Spin says:
The questions concerning the nature of atheistic belief is important and must be defended by atheists. They cannot demand that theistic argument defend its beliefs without being willing to defend its own. Now, there is a difference between belief and knowledge, something atheists forget. Consider: If I know God exists, then I also believe God exists.. However, if I only believe God exists, I do not know God exists. Atheists tend to confuse this distinction and argue that their belief constitutes knowledge when in fact their knowledge consists of other things which lead to the formation of a belief. To get around this atheists say they know God doesn't exist because of the lack of evidence. This is logically similar to saying that rain does not exist because it is not raining. Absence does not entail non-existence. So atheists are unique in that they can believe something without knowing it, a state-of-affairs no different from the Theists. In short, the question here concerns the logical faults in an atheistic belief system, rather than the object of that belief (in this case, God).

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Nov 2010 07:54:52 GMT
Vegplanet says:
Spin

"To get around this atheists say they know God doesn't exist because of the lack of evidence. This is logically similar to saying that rain does not exist because it is not raining. Absence does not entail non-existence"

Atheism generally suggests that we have no reason to believe in a God, not that no God exists. I would suggest that we have solid grounds for beleiving that rain exists.
It is interesting that you mention rain as the scientific explanation for rainfall is obviously clear due to advances in our understanding of science and meteorology. Some cultures used to pray to deities for precipitation but it is now generally accepted that this was misguided and that the weather is simply part of the natural order . Atheism would simply extend this rationale to the creation of the universe.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Nov 2010 08:42:07 GMT
Last edited by the author on 18 Nov 2010 10:02:37 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Nov 2010 09:07:28 GMT
Last edited by the author on 18 Nov 2010 09:17:27 GMT
Drew Jones says:
"Now, there is a difference between belief and knowledge, something atheists forget."
If that's true why is it that you make the confusion. A person can claim to know their god exists but this is always revealed to be an over statement. You can only believe a god exists until to get direct evidence. The closest a theist comes to that is saying how effective their assumed belief has been for them, this does not pass their belief into knowledge. They just strongly believe. Given the almighty nature of the subject they are claiming to verify the theist is unaware of how impossible it would be to come to knowledge of such a being.

It's the athiest who acknowledges they can only believe or be almost certain who allows for falsification and fallability. That suggests an understanding of where beliefs and knowledge separate.

"Atheists tend to confuse this distinction and argue that their belief constitutes knowledge when in fact their knowledge consists of other things which lead to the formation of a belief."
Can you provide an example of someone who does this? Knowledge of god would only be of a theoretical model, like the theory of evolution. The god hypothesis would hold together a lot of evidence for the theist but they could never verify something like omniscience. Likewise for the atheist explaining things without the need to invoke a god and finding evidence that goes against traditional interpretations lead to ideas that converge on the conclusion that belief in god is unnecessary and while a god of some sort can't be conclusively ruled out those currently holding beliefs are more than likely just guessing at the moment, that's what an absence of evidence suggests.

"To get around this atheists say they know God doesn't exist because of the lack of evidence. This is logically similar to saying that rain does not exist because it is not raining. Absence does not entail non-existence."
Yes an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence but if you accept there is an absence of evidence it begs the question, how does the theist claim to 'know'? And why did you let that detail pass you by?

"So atheists are unique in that they can believe something without knowing it, a state-of-affairs no different from the Theists."
Not so and this is where you have to pay attention to the subtle difference between believing something and lacking a belief. An atheist doesn't nescessacerily actively believe no god exists, if you don't accept the theists claim you lack that belief they have. If you lack a belief you don't have to then actively remind yourself to really believe there is no god your already doing it. The theist sees it as actively not believing because everything is filtered through their worldview that has belief at the centre yet it becomes pointless to start characterising things by what they don't do, for example I speak English because I lack fluency in any other language but you would not say this is 'not speaking French' even though a Frenchman would see it that way.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Nov 2010 09:36:51 GMT
Last edited by the author on 18 Nov 2010 10:07:07 GMT
And suffering in general can be quite easily traced back to Sauron, who was himself in the service of [Morgoth], who was sealed in the void for all time with generic SEGA characters that no longer bring in revenue.

EDIT: I see Paul's back, welcome back.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Nov 2010 10:02:29 GMT
Last edited by the author on 18 Nov 2010 10:02:39 GMT
ThulŽatan says:
Wasn't it Morgoth whom Sauron served? Gothmog was just one of those big balrog fellas. And if Ryo Hazuki is in that void it'd be a damn shame...
Discussion locked

Recent discussions in the religion discussion forum

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  201
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  11 Sep 2010
Latest post:  5 Mar 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 13 customers

Search Customer Discussions