Arguments for Atheism

To be honest i think the homily is the only part of mass which makes any sense

 

Actually, you do lose if you're a religious person. Religion distorts a person's individuality. We are Immortal Spiritual Beings and religion is a belief system that may or may not be true. Instead of conforming to a religion, it is better to seek the truth for ourselves.
It really depends on the religion. Some religions really put people in a state of guilt and fear for "sin". There are some very enlightened cultures out there that encourage people to seek the truth so they are systems of learning and not belief systems.

Great video that explains this quite well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAB4hj_Y8ZQ&feature=channel_video_title

 

If god is willing to stop evil, but not able, then he is not omnipotent
If he is able to stop evil, but not willing, then he is malveolent
If he is both able and willing to stop evil, then from where does evil come?
If he is neither able nor willing, then why call him god?

 

A Christian would argue that God is both able and willing to stop evil.

He would say however evil comes from knowledge, and knowledge is the punishment inflicted on humans due to Adam and Eve.

I'm Atheist so don't hate on me.

 

There is no such thing as "Good" or "Evil". There is only Experience. Good and Evil are relative concepts. Humans learn through both good and bad which is why Evil must exist. Humans learn through Experience. There must be Evil in the world in order for Good to overcome it.

God is not a deity at all. There are several Universal Laws that govern the Universe such as the Law of Cause and Effect (Karma)
We reap what we sow.

God is in everyone, even in what you consider Evil such as Hitler. We are all God and the whole Universe is connected.

Adam and Eve are not actual humans. They are a metaphor for the knowledge of both Good and Evil - the knowledge of Duality.

 

delete it plz

 

The problem is Science and Religion have to be kept seperate, they are to contrasting philosophies. Science is inherently naturalistic, its field of enquiry is always limited to natural causes - so any "God did it" explanation is excluded from the beginning. That is why many people have problems with evolution, its an ignorance of the philosophical underpinnings of modern Science itself.

 

How can they be kept separate when they both try to explain the same thing (the creation of the universe..)

 

I think it's irresponsible to disregard any theories of an intelligent design.
Not believing in any of our various conceptions of god is logical though

 

It's not irresponsible to disregard any theory with no empirical evidence to support it. Also, I don't think Intelligent Design would satisfy the criteria for a 'theory', given it's unfalsifiability.

 

Lol
Well, let me put it this way.
Does it make sense to say that everything that has ever been, ever was, or ever will be; came from nothing?
How is that possible?
There's a principle of biology which states that; life may only come from other life. For instance, a cell cannot just generate out of thin air. Correct?
Okay, regardless of the many stances on evolution vs. whatever the hell else the blind want to look into, NO ONE can prove how the first living cell came into existence. <--- Had you been born before this time, you would not have known any better. You are JUST human, like the rest of us.

Therefore, saying that the POSSIBILITY EXISTS, that there are forces at work in the workings of the universe which you can't understand, is not so ignorant. MY reasoning tells me that the billions of galaxy clusters and other bodies inhabiting this INFINITELY large universe, (and there MAY BE a further indefinite amount of universes) did not all just appear in existence, stemming from nothing, and MADE FROM NOTHING.
You stupid boy?

 

Including the Intelligent Designer?

Abiogenesis is garnering Empirical evidence whereas Intelligent Design is not.

Possibilities are unlimited even if they don't contradict one another. It is equally possible that an Intelligent Designer fine tuned the universe, much as it is equally possible our brains are all locked in a vat. It's also equally possible for an actual Santa Clause to exist as well as the Tooth Fairy.

I would call an Intelligent Designer something. I call a supernatural force something. Why should we grant special pleading for your beliefs and not mine below?

If there is a scintilla of empirical evidence supporting Intelligent Design as a 'theory' I'm sure we'd all love to know. But if you insist on believing in the 'theory' irrelevant no evidence supporting it, then I proffer you something:

Why don't you believe in the theory called 'justnowism'? I can prove to you the veracity of this theory with the same arguments you use for Intelligent Design.

 

No one can prove? That's a misnomer; it could be better stated as "nobody has, as of yet, conclusively shown where the first life came from."

That's fine, but you can't base a so-called scientific theory on the unobservable.

And by reasoning, you mean intuition.

 

Intelligent people do not need heaven and hell in order to see the returns of moral behaviour.

 

I Think people who do not believe in god shouldn't be on this earth, nuff said.

 

Maybe us Atheists think people who believe in a predominant, illogical based theory and abide by this their whole, entire life are delusional, and cannot prove any basis of which they preach.

 

You sir are completely ignorant and are one of the main causes of ridicule by Athiests. Religious people always get annoyed by "us Athiests coming at their religion", but it's perfectly fine for all of you to make statements like this?

I can understand if you had your own intelligently developed opinion and argued it in a respectful manner, but your statement is just outlandish.

Also in posted that statement, you did nothing but spam this thread. You have not contributed to OP's question at all. (Yes I do realize that in replying I'm doing the same, and I'm sorry.)

 

Although I would initially agree with your reasoning of not experiencing something superior to humans, I would have to disagree. It's just due to the size of the universe and the probability that some life form out there is much more superior to humans.

Not a god though.

 

Might as well add my own thoughts since trying to jump in on any conversation already setup would just be awkward.

First to anyone that says they're agnostic, EVERYONE is agnostic. Agnostic is the state of knowledge on a subject not your standing on its matter, so if you don't know with 100% certainty that god exists than you're agnostic, but like I said this will not change your standing whether it be Atheist or Theist.

Next is one personal problem I have with anyone trying to prove god...wouldn't it be much easier to simply say "I don't know" and admit you can't prove god with man's laws and logic hence turning the act of disproving him into a moot point because your saying "I don't know". Yet you are so resilient to stay on the point that god can be proven with:

-A book with the credibility thats less of a Dr.Suess story.
-Events with really no historical or geographical backup.
-Arguments that are easily disproved by logic.
-The list goes on but I'm going to stick with these 3 generalized points, if you have any others then please feel free to bring them up.

Sadly these are easily disproved with the only variable factor being the "mysteriousness" of god when this is just a ridiculous reason for Theists to say god can't follow any sort of pattern.