Why be an athiest?

[Crazeywolfx]

You believe you get to go to a magical happy place or burn in a hole.

I believe you get to rot 6 feet under the ground.

At the end of the day, who cares?

 

[Muffinator]

I'm sorry, but that is by far the dumbest thing I have ever heard someone say.
We have to prove our God, yet you can just hope one doesn't exist and call it proof?

Never did that. Straw man fallacy.

No. It is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God,

Which god is this? I know some that are disproven.

which means we are back to square one, and you have no more facts than someone who does believe in God.

And since believers have no more facts than I do, victory goes to me.

Care to explain?
Have an example of thought restriction in Christianity?

How about "IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN JESUS YOU WILL SUCK SATAN'S COCK FOR ALL ETERNITY!!!!!"?
I wouldn't be very inclined to be skeptical if I had that drilled into my head.

And explain how believing in life after death means that you don't appreciate this life? Because I just explained how Atheism doesn't necessarily entail a better "appreciation for life".

Upon accepting the impossibility of an afterlife, one finds that life is no longer a test to be endured, and instead a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.

And why do you think being selfish is wrong? Because you say so? Outside of religion, it isn't inherently bad, that's just your opinion.

Are you saying that selfishness is righteous?
If you truly believe that selfishness is the greatest good then we can't argue on moral grounds.

lol... could I not say the same for people who believe in no afterlife?

No, you couldn't, because people who believe in no afterlife give a shit about real life.

Surely you're not trying to say that it's more probable for people to live "morally" when believing that no consequences exist as opposed to people who believe that even bad thoughts are sin and could have consequence.

Surely you're not trying to say that being good only because being bad has consequences is better than being good because one is simply a good person.

And the entirety of your response to my request was irrelevant.

I don't think "response" would fit chronologically.

I wanted you to explain how morality made logical sense outside of religion. How could morality possible exist when it's dependent on personal discernment?

Because persons discern it.

Therefore everyone would have different "morals". So saying Atheism provides morals is idiotic.

You... Atleast you didn't contradict yourself in one sentence... I guess I've gotta give you props for that.
Let me apply this reasoning to everyday speech:
Poodles are different from bulldogs, therefore neither of them are dogs.

If you're saying Atheism is the truth, then you are saying God cannot possibly exist.

That doesn't logically follow. A foreign concept, I know.
Does not and cannot are not the same. Not to necessarily say that there couldn't possibly be a circumstance where they were the same.

Therefore you need to explain how it is an impossibility, which is impossible.

Ugh. Just tell me...
Do you believe that your god is omnipotent?
Do you believe that your god is omniscient?
Do you believe that your god is perfect?
Do you believe that your god is omnipotent and all-benevolent?
Do you believe that your god is omnipotent and omniscient?
Do you believe that your god created the universe?
Do you believe that your god is perfect and created the universe?
Do you believe that your god is omnipotent, all-benevolent, and created the universe?
Do you believe that your god is omniscient, all-benevolent, and created the universe?
Do you believe that your god is omnipotent, omniscient, all-benevolent, and created the universe?

 

[Krypton6]

How can you live knowing the all of your love ones, and all of what you have accomplished in this world, will one day disappear.

I just don’t get it! How can you! I cannot imagine my self not believing in some sort of after live.

I know that it is a question of accepting it, but the truth is, that it is not something you chose your self, it is something that is chosen for you no matter if you, your self have already accepted it or not.

I just don’t get it.


HOW CAN YOU LIVE KNOWING THAT EVERYTHING AROUND YOU WILL BE GONE ONE DAY ?
The persons you love most, perhaps your children’s or your wife, and all of what you have accomplished in this world through out so many years, will one day be gone, and you will be yet another dead body on earth.

HOW CAN SOME ONE LIVE, BELIEVING THAT WAY ?

Religion is not a question of insecurity regarding your self, but simply a question of living.
Religion is the path we follow through out our life, its the thing we turn to when we our self’s don’t know what to do, that does not mean we are insecure!

Yet atheist claim they are secure and do not need a god to help them, but yet they truly don’t know a shit about the world.
As long as they believe that they and only them self’s are the masters of them self’s, and that they know everything, they will deny god, but as soon as they find something which they do not know the answer for, they return to religion, since the answer is not in science.

 

[Cruel__Machine]

How about "IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN JESUS YOU WILL SUCK SATAN'S COCK FOR ALL ETERNITY!!!!!"?
I wouldn't be very inclined to be skeptical if I had that drilled into my head.

Why would you become/remain Christian if you didn't believe in Jesus?
Better example please?

Upon accepting the impossibility of an afterlife, one finds that life is no longer a test to be endured, and instead a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.

Irrelevant to my request, once again. You merely posed a possible instance of Atheistic appreciation, not an inevitable one that applies to all Atheists. I already explained other possible Atheistic points of view that show otherwise. How about refuting by comments on the logic of appreciating life instead of conjuring further irrelevance instances of possible appreciation?

Are you saying that selfishness is righteous?
If you truly believe that selfishness is the greatest good then we can't argue on moral grounds.

Not even close to what I was saying.
Some people find nothing wrong with it. What makes you think your moral opinion is correct? Because that's the social norm you've been raised with? Come on...

No, you couldn't, because people who believe in no afterlife give a shit about real life.

Speak for yourself and don't assume what others think... else you're just proving that Atheism restricts thoughts (contrary to what you've said) by not allowing Atheists to not appreciate life.

And you said that I couldn't say the same for people who believe in no afterlife.
So why could I not say this (modified from your statement):
"Why be good in this life if you're just going to cease to exist when you die? Why not rape and murder if you feel like it?"
I can't say this "because people who believe in no afterlife give a shit about real life"??? WTF?
"Giving a shit" != "appreciating life" != "living morally".
Relevance--;

Surely you're not trying to say that being good only because being bad has consequences is better than being good because one is simply a good person.

Surely I am not. And I never mentioned anything about being a "good person". And wouldn't being a "good person" not also be subjected to opinion along with the morals that are explicitly required to deem such a person?
How do you figure that people who believe in no consequences are more likely to live by their morals than those that believe otherwise?

Because persons discern it.

You... Atleast you didn't contradict yourself in one sentence... I guess I've gotta give you props for that.
Let me apply this reasoning to everyday speech:
Poodles are different from bulldogs, therefore neither of them are dogs.

Oh... excuse me for trying to make a logical assumptions while treading through your nonsense. You said "Atheism provides morals" and listed it among the reasons for you being Atheist. Therefore, I logically assumed that you must mean that these morals are something that don't exist in religions (else it wouldn't be a valid reason). And for that to be true, this must mean that they are absolute (otherwise, if up to discernment, they might coincide with a religion's, also not making it a valid reason).
Or are you just being retarded and saying that religions don't offer morals?

That doesn't logically follow. A foreign concept, I know.
Does not and cannot are not the same. Not to necessarily say that there couldn't possibly be a circumstance where they were the same.

Huh? Moot, once again.
If you say Atheism is truth (like you have), you must mean that the entailed beliefs of Atheism at, in fact, truth. Which means that the nonexistence of God is truth, and it therefore the existence thereof would be impossible. For if God's existence were possible, that'd mean that Atheism is only possibly true.
Do you understand yet?

Do you believe that your god is omnipotent, omniscient, all-benevolent, and created the universe?

Yes.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Yes.

Why do you believe this?

How can you live knowing the all of your love ones, and all of what you have accomplished in this world, will one day disappear.

I just don’t get it! How can you! I cannot imagine my self not believing in some sort of after live.

The level of comfort/reassurance that a belief offers is not valid ground for logically believing in it.

Yet atheist claim they are secure and do not need a god to help them

I, and my Atheist friends, certainly feel that way.

but yet they truly don’t know a shit about the world.

I think I'll disagree with you there. I myself am an Atheist, and I know many things about the world. Therefore, your generalization is incorrect.

As long as they believe that they and only them self’s are the masters of them self’s, and that they know everything, they will deny god

Well, very few people claim to know everything, but I do believe that I am my own master.

but as soon as they find something which they do not know the answer for, they return to religion, since the answer is not in science.

But there are many things I do not know, yet I do not turn to religion for answers! Your generalization is, again, incorrect.

 

[amourpaix]

theres a bunch of religions, how do you know which one is right and wrong?
almost all religions were created way too late into human time.
christianity.
2000 years ago. out of the like 8 billion years and like 100,000 years humans have been around.

eh, i dont think i could believe in that, considering the only proof of god is a BOOK. not enough for me, sorry.

 

[jebckr]

theres a bunch of religions, how do you know which one is right and wrong?
almost all religions were created way too late into human time.
christianity.
2000 years ago. out of the like 8 billion years and like 100,000 years humans have been around.

eh, i dont think i could believe in that, considering the only proof of god is a BOOK. not enough for me, sorry.

4.7million years, and most Christians believe the earth to be about 6,000 years old. That or they have no idea because they can't think outside the box and when you bring up the subject they stop talking to you because you are "evil" to even think that there is no God.
(I know not all are narrow minded, don't flame me)

 

[patience]

You put the lime in the coconut and mix it all up.

If god isnt real and its 11:42 in georgia on a saterday evening and its raining and a guy comes up to you and kills you, Where do you go?

 

[Shredderbeam]

Er, you would go nowhere.

 

[Muffinator]

How can you live knowing the all of your love ones, and all of what you have accomplished in this world, will one day disappear.

I just don’t get it! How can you!

…

HOW CAN YOU LIVE KNOWING THAT EVERYTHING AROUND YOU WILL BE GONE ONE DAY ?
The persons you love most, perhaps your children’s or your wife, and all of what you have accomplished in this world through out so many years, will one day be gone, and you will be yet another dead body on earth.

HOW CAN SOME ONE LIVE, BELIEVING THAT WAY ?

You could apply this reasoning to an ice cream cone.

As long as they believe that they and only them self’s are the masters of them self’s, and that they know everything, they will deny god, but as soon as they find something which they do not know the answer for, they return to religion, since the answer is not in science.

I’d like to inform you that atheists, not just in general but pretty much universally, do not claim to be omniscient, and do not change their minds when those claims, of which there were none, turn out to be true.
Also, the word would be “turn”, not “return” in most-no, in ALL cases.

Why would you become/remain Christian if you didn't believe in Jesus?
Better example please?

What better example is there than the fear of Hell?

Oh.

why could I not say this (modified from your statement):
"Why be good in this life if you're just going to cease to exist when you die? Why not rape and murder if you feel like it?"
I can't say this "because people who believe in no afterlife give a shit about real life"???

You just answered yourself. I don’t see what the problem here is.

"Giving a shit" != "appreciating life" != "living morally".
Relevance--;

Relevance: What atheism has to offer you, in a thread titled “Why be an atheist?”.

How do you figure that people who believe in no consequences are more likely to live by their morals than those that believe otherwise?

Because those who believe in such consequences will only avoid doing evil for fear of the consequences. Those who believe that said consequences do not exist are free to do only what they think is right.

You said "Atheism provides morals" and listed it among the reasons for you being Atheist.

Actually, I was only using it as an example for those who ask what atheism has to offer them instead of whether it’s true.

And for that to be true, this must mean that they are absolute (otherwise, if up to discernment, they might coincide with a religion's, also not making it a valid reason).

Wrong. One of the great things about atheist morals is that they aren’t absolute.

Or are you just being retarded and saying that religions don't offer morals?

Being retarded? No. Saying that religions don’t offer morals? *Tick… Tick… Tick… DING!* Hell yeah! Religions promise rewards and/or consequences, not morals.

If you say Atheism is truth (like you have), you must mean that the entailed beliefs of Atheism at, in fact, truth. Which means that the nonexistence of God is truth, and it therefore the existence thereof would be impossible. For if God's existence were possible, that'd mean that Atheism is only possibly true.

You’re repeating yourself. Does not and can not still aren’t the same.
For example: I chose not to eat my own shit this morning. I did not eat my own shit this morning. But could I have eaten my own shit this morning? Well yeah: If someone had put a gun to my head and told me to eat my shit I just might have done it.
"I ate my own shit this morning" was not the case, but it was still a possibility.


BUT, according to you, we’ve established that anything that does not exist cannot possibly exist. Every god lacks existence, therefore, every god is impossible.
Proof FTW.

Do you believe that your god is omnipotent, omniscient, all-benevolent, and created the universe?

Yes.

Wow, I didn’t expect to get so many. This’ll be fun!
Omnipotent A:
Can God make a rock God can’t lift?
If he can’t, then he isn’t omnipotent, which defies the “God is omnipotent” part.
If he can, then shouldn’t his omnipotence allow him to lift the rock? But that would mean he can’t make an unliftable rock in the first place.
Omnipotent+omniscient:
Does God know what God is going to do next?
If not, then he isn’t omniscient, which defies the “God is omniscient” part.
If so, then shouldn’t his omnipotence allow him to do something different? But that would mean he doesn’t know everything, contrary to being omniscient.
Omnipotent B:
If God can do ANYTHING (definition of omnipotent), then he can see his own future, which has the same problem as omnipotence+omniscience
Omnipotent+all-benevolent:
Cancer.
Created the universe:
Where was God before there was a universe for anything to exist in?
Omnipotent+all-benevolent+created the universe:
Cancer again.

Though I realize that omniscient, all-benevolent, and created universe aren’t really contradictory (you’ll notice that as one of the possible answers I listed in my previous post.) Luckily for me, you threw omnipotent into the mix.

Omnipotent+all-benevolent:
Cancer yet again.
Omnipotent+omniscient+all-benevolent:
Cancer still.

I have now proven that your god is impossible in 8 different ways.

If god isnt real and its 11:42 in georgia on a saterday evening and its raining and a guy comes up to you and kills you, Where do you go?

The same place you would go if God were real, it was 7:30 in Michigan on a monday morning and it was sunny and a woman snuck up from behind you and killed you: A hole in the ground.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Actually, Muffinator, there is an argument against that inconsistent triad (omniscient, benevolent, omnipotent, etc.). It is that evil exists so the best possible world can exist, for only by such trials and torments can we attain spiritual purity.

Personally, if there were a God, I would not want to live in such a world where there was no pain, no sorrow, and everything was perfect. If you've read Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley, you can probably see why. There is little to no suffering in their world, but the "Savage", when plunged into it, finds it unnatural, repulsive, and morally bankrupt.

 

[Cruel__Machine]

What better example is there than the fear of Hell?
http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/1934/examplesv4.png

Oh.

Okay now...
So... because a religion teaches that, if you do/believe/think certain things, you won't receive rewards (or you'll receive consequences, in retrospect), that means you are not free to do/believe/think those things?

You just answered yourself. I don’t see what the problem here is.

The problem here is your nonsense is wasting my time.
So... because they "give a shit about real life" they won't rape and murder if they feel like it?

Because those who believe in such consequences will only avoid doing evil for fear of the consequences.

It's irrelevant if they are following their morals simply because of fear... they are still following them. And don't even reiterate "but that means they aren't truly a good person"... I already explained how that's not correct.

Those who believe that said consequences do not exist are free to do only what they think is right.

So... they're not free to do what they think is wrong?
Your post count may not be high, but your nonsense count sure is. -_-

Wrong. One of the great things about atheist morals is that they aren’t absolute.

Precisely why Atheism doesn't necessarily provide anything different (in the matter of "morals"). Those morals could, as I said, coincide with a religion's. Therefore, your statement that morals are among the items that are "a hell of a lot more than any religion" offers (as said in your first post) is incorrect.

Being retarded? No. Saying that religions don’t offer morals? *Tick… Tick… Tick… DING!* Hell yeah! Religions promise rewards and/or consequences, not morals.

Being retarded? Very much so.
And you are correct, religions don't promise morals, but they do offer them (and consequences/rewards [in most religions anyways]).
Morals concern that which is right and wrong. You're right... religions don't offer those in the least...

You’re repeating yourself. Does not and can not still aren’t the same.

Are you implying that if something does not exist, that it's existence can be possible? I don't believe you are (for that would mean you believe God possibly exists). So what are you whining about?

"I ate my own shit this morning" was not the case, but it was still a possibility.

Yes, but it isn't a possibility for you to have eaten your own shit. But it was.
Stop playing on past-tense unless you're implying that is was possible for God to exist, but for some reason isn't now. Just plain annoying...

BUT, according to you, we’ve established that anything that does not exist cannot possibly exist. Every god lacks existence, therefore, every god is impossible.
Proof FTW.

You started your proof with the given "Every god lacks existence"...
a very solid proof. The scientific community would frown upon you.

Omnipotent A:
Can God make a rock God can’t lift?
If he can’t, then he isn’t omnipotent, which defies the “God is omnipotent” part.

*yawn* I could go on all day...
I've already spoken of this (probably with shredder), but I'll reiterate so it can again be clarified.
If a being can do "everything", how should it be that it can do the impossible, which is not necessarily within the realm of "everything". It is an action that essentially doesn't exist.

Omnipotent+omniscient:
Does God know what God is going to do next?

Next? Oh dear... I do believe you've made an assumption. You assume the realm outside of time to have an order of events. You cannot say that an action is subsequent to another. Outside of time would be a state of inaction, a constant frame of existence, yet changing. Hard to imagine an existence without time, I know

Omnipotent B:
If God can do ANYTHING (definition of omnipotent), then he can see his own future, which has the same problem as omnipotence+omniscience

All-righty... now onto my second argument (this could apply to omniscience as well, and my first argument concerning omnipotence could apply to omniscience as well... they're closely related).
This gets technical, using definitions.
"Being able to do anything" is one definition, but I prefer this one:

1. Having unlimited power, force or authority.

Unlimited is synonymous with infinite.
And for one to have infinite power, one's power must be forever expanding, but not necessarily all-encompassing.

Therefore: If the impossible is included in the realm of "anything", in opposition of my first argument, then I believe God is omniscient and omnipotent (but not all-knowing and all-powerful)... for I believe that there are things that cannot be done... and things that cannot be known.

Omnipotent+all-benevolent:
Cancer.

What... Is cancer bad? Is death bad for that matter?
Is that not opinion?

Created the universe:
Where was God before there was a universe for anything to exist in?

Your implication is right... there cannot possibly be a realm of existence beyond our universe. <insert "huh?" pic>
It is impossible (I believe) to prove there is a higher (or could be merely different in this case) realm of existence. So there's no way we can know.
I don't see how God can even know that He exists on the highest plane of reality. But that's my speculation (of course).

I have now proven that your god is impossible in 8 different ways.

Awesome!
*looks around*
where?

 

[X800]

they do have a choice in there religion you know?

 

[Shredderbeam]

Cruel, why specifically do you believe in a God?

 

[Krypton6]

Why do you believe this?



The level of comfort/reassurance that a belief offers is not valid ground for logically believing in it.



I, and my Atheist friends, certainly feel that way.



I think I'll disagree with you there. I myself am an Atheist, and I know many things about the world. Therefore, your generalization is incorrect.

Generally man dosent know a thing about the world, it is something that some just wont admit.


Well, very few people claim to know everything, but I do believe that I am my own master.



But there are many things I do not know, yet I do not turn to religion for answers! Your generalization is, again, incorrect.

Those thigns which you do not know, you turn to science for the answers, believing that it has the answers.

And again, when I say all this, I talk in a much bigger plan than just you.

Man denies that there is no speed above the speed of light, simply because of the fact, that all physic rules will if that is true, be broken, meaning that we are back to stage 1.

True or False?

 

[Shredderbeam]

Why do you believe this?

The level of comfort/reassurance that a belief offers is not valid ground for logically believing in it.

I, and my Atheist friends, certainly feel that way.

I think I'll disagree with you there. I myself am an Atheist, and I know many things about the world. Therefore, your generalization is incorrect.

But there are many things I do not know, yet I do not turn to religion for answers! Your generalization is, again, incorrect.

Those thigns which you do not know, you turn to science for the answers, believing that it has the answers.

And again, when I say all this, I talk in a much bigger plan than just you.

Man denies that there is no speed above the speed of light, simply because of the fact, that all physic rules will if that is true, be broken, meaning that we are back to stage 1.

True or False?

Generally, on a large scale, it is impossible to travel faster than the speed of light.

 

[Krypton6]

Well... It has bin proven sooooo many times, that the speed can and has bin broken.
The biggest evidence is the expantion of space during its easliest times.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Yes, in the first few seconds of the universe, the universe expanded at a speed faster than light (according to what we now know). However, again, the rule that the speed of light cannot be broken is a general rule, and does not apply to "odd" circumstances.

 

[Muffinator]

Cruel__Machine:
You just went on about how I was spouting "nonsense" in your most nonsensical post. I don't even know how to respond to most of what you said, and we've been getting nowhere anyway, so I'll just leave this whole mess right now.

 

[Xx Hahaha xX]

because some people just find religeon dumb and phony and choose not to follow some phony thing that they are "sure" that its not true.