Why are people athiests?

Because god doesn't exist... therefore...

What says God doesn't exist? How do you determine that?

because i believe god does not exist. that one was pretty obvious, no?

Yeah, but do you have any proof, or is it just the alternative to being theistic?

By observation of reality. The real question is how can you determine that god does exist. It's not possible to determine this through any but emotional means. So god is accepted through emotional arguments and denied through logical arguments.

Basically, what really got me was the fact that there are so many versions of god out there. Which one is right? Any of them? All of them? None of them? I settled with the latter.

How can god exist as a literal "persona" defined in a book that was written by people who didn't understand anything of the world around them? It's a rationalization to hold off fear of the unknown. The various "holy" books around the world refute each other in more ways than one. There is an inherent antagonism in any "one god" religion. It's a battle of my god versus your god. I'd be more likely to believe in a pantheon of gods rather than a single god.

Strictly speaking, I'm not an atheist. I'm more of an agnostic with atheistic tendencies. I would like to believe in a higher power, but everything I've seen leads me to believe that there is none. And if there is, it is uncaring and unfeeling in any human sense of the word. And also wouldn't even begin to fit in a book. You couldn't describe "god" with anything less than god he/she/them-self. To attempt to do so would pigeon hole something uncomprehendable and awe-inspiring into some petty human god, which is what the religions of the world do. In my opinion.

I honestly don't want to argue, just wanted to see how you reason stuff, but every thing I look at seems to prove the existance of a higher being. Odd, isn't it?

I don't think the existence of God can be proven, since the concept of "proving" is logical and scientific, and religion is all about believing and faith without actually KNOWING. the important thing about religion is that it makes people happy in one way or another
we can't deny the existence god on the reasoning that evidence is lacking, but I do not believe we should "blindly" believe in something without any logic.
I guess the reason why the topic about the existence of God is so controversial is that we are all anxious about discovering the truth, and everybody thinks he/she is right, but really anybody can be wrong.

Eddymrci, I agree with you compleatly! I guess I ment which seems to have more facts to support it. Thanks for correcting me!

By observation of reality.
but how would you define "reality" (as Morpheus would say in THE MATRIX)? you cannot deny the concept of something that is beyond our senses, and the concept that there is something more in this universe that we are unable to sense, you cannot deny the concept of "supernature".

Basically, what really got me was the fact that there are so many versions of god out there. Which one is right? Any of them? All of them? None of them? I settled with the latter.
I definitely agree with, that's one of the things that really got me too. Why are there so many religions and faith organizations, and they all claim that they have got the "ULTIMATE TRUTH"? how do we know which one is telling the truth?

the important thing about religion is that it makes people happy in one way or another

That's another thing that turns me away from religion. These people use religion as a crutch so they don't have to deal with their own issues. There is nothing "happier" than a mob of people burning a witch. It's been a while since religion has led to such violence in the west, but the potential is still there and will be used again.

Religion is a brainwashing technique. It keeps the masses pacified. It assures them that it is all god's will, and god's will be done. Time and time again, charismatic people have taken religion and gathered weak-willed followers. Some of these cults just quietly bide their time, while others do things more drastically. I am entirely confident that if religion continues (and it most likely will) then there will come a new inquisition, there will be a new dark age, there will be more witch trials. Religion breeds xenophobia. All nonbelievers are outside the blessings of god and can be treated as animals.

but how would you define "reality" (as Morpheus would say in THE MATRIX)? you cannot deny the concept of something that is beyond our senses, and the concept that there is something more in this universe that we are unable to sense, you cannot deny the concept of "supernature".

I hesitated at using reality in that sentence, because I knew that this would occur. For all we know, we're just raving lunatics in an asylum undergoing shock treatment and hallucinating a world. But in the end, you must believe the evidence of the senses. If you don't, then you're denying the one thing you have to view the world. This is the denial of reality that leads to religious thought.

do i have proof? how can i disprove that which defies logic? and why must i have proof to believe something? [i have been waiting to use that argument for years, thank you enigma. :D ]

I think that to know which one is right, you just have to sort out the claims. Some religions are so ancient thet what they claim could never have happened. Others have no archealogical support. Sometimes you come across stuff (and I know it's not scientific or any thing) but you just kind of say to your self " hey, this makes sense; it answers my questions." It's almost a gut-feeling kind of thing. Sorry I don't mean to impose my beliefs on anyone. My question is always "It couldn't just happen, right? So what else can explain it?"

why couldn't it just happen?

but as for more substantive things, it is my experience that as human history has progressed, the tenets of organized religion have been changed to fit reality. those religions that could adapt did so, those that couldn't died out. it seems to me that the idea of god exists only because people want it to. i don't think that makes it valid. but there are other things, the insistence of the religious that their way is the way and everyone else is damned. but most of all, i simply don't believe in a soul. if i don't have a soul, then i need not worry about the afterlife, and consequently, i believe god doesn't exist. sorry for any spelling or logic errors, but i'm in a hurry. i'll leave you with a quote:

"i contend that we are both atheists. i just believe in one fewer god than you do. when you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why i dismiss yours."
- Stephen Roberts.

It's almost a gut-feeling kind of thing.

Exactly, it's an emotional conclusion. It's comforting. It's soothing. It's an easy way out. It leads to taking the easy path. Even when that path might seem difficult, such as privation and celibacy and other ways of "purifying" oneself for god, these ways are easier because they fulfill emotional needs that would be difficult to achieve otherwise.

Imagine what science (I know you said it's not scientific, but...) would be like if scientists followed this rule. Well, this doesn't sound right, so I'll just believe this instead. How much you wanna bet we'd still be riding around and horses and hunting for our own food?

Religion was the worlds first attempt at science. It attempted to explain what was thought of as the unexplainable. It turns out that it wasn't unexplainable after all. It turns out that it may be difficult to understand and it may take a while to achieve significant results, but the world can be explained without the interference of all-powerful god-beings. Religion did it's job elevating us above the apes (if one can make that claim...) but now it's a dusty relic whose time is past. It now holds us down to the level of our early ancestors. We should seek to rise above the past, not glorify it's fallacies.

No man, I mean no disrespect, but I disagree with you. There are may religions which require sacrifice, how can giving something up you can about cause happiness? How can an athiest have happiness when he knows that he is just one of many. He has no purpose in life, does he?

That's another thing that turns me away from religion. These people use religion as a crutch so they don't have to deal with their own issues. There is nothing "happier" than a mob of people burning a witch. It's been a while since religion has led to such violence in the west, but the potential is still there and will be used again.
Religion is a brainwashing technique. It keeps the masses pacified. It assures them that it is all god's will, and god's will be done. Time and time again, charismatic people have taken religion and gathered weak-willed followers. Some of these cults just quietly bide their time, while others do things more drastically. I am entirely confident that if religion continues (and it most likely will) then there will come a new inquisition, there will be a new dark age, there will be more witch trials. Religion breeds xenophobia. All nonbelievers are outside the blessings of god and can be treated as animals.

yes I agree, but while it may not be the best way to seek happiness for us, it may be for other people, since everybody has different perspectives. the point is, it makes the people who believe it happy.

Happiness is not always what's best. If it were, we could all just dope up all day and be plenty happy. The problem with the religionist's happiness is that they are perpetuating a belief system that has caused "unhappiness" to nonbelievers in the past and will surely do the same in the future. Also, can't forget the now, I wonder how many people were stoned to death today?

No man, I mean no disrespect, but I disagree with you. There are may religions which require sacrifice, how can giving something up you can about cause happiness? How can an athiest have happiness when he knows that he is just one of many. He has no purpose in life, does he?
this is all based on personal perspectives, in ancient times, people were forced to believe in religions and kings made brutal sacrifices that satisfied himself. That's not religion, that's dictatorship
HOWEVER, if a person truly believes in the religion, and we do have the freedom of religion nowadays, the religion would make its believer happy, and I believe that a firm believer of a religion would give up or sacrifice anything for his/her faiths, even the person's life. as a matter of fact, there are examples of these in the modern world, a bunch of people would give up anything if they truly believe in their religion

There are may religions which require sacrifice, how can giving something up you can about cause happiness?

There is nothing as powerful as the ectasy that the ultimately religious feel. It's a matter of endorphins and other biological factors. They are in rapture at their sacrifice.

There are religions that attempt to stifle emotions, but even they achieve bliss in nirvana through self-deprivation and other methods. It's not as much of a sacrifice as it seems on the surface. IMO.

And don't worry, I'm not gettin pissed or anything.

There's also something to be said for that tremendous feeling of self-satisfaction that comes through sacrifices of this type.

Eddy,

we can't deny the existence god on the reasoning that evidence is lacking,Of course we can, it is the biggest evidence for the non existence of gods, especially when claims for gods have been around for thousands of years and still there is no evidence. How many more thousands of years are you going to wait before you say enough is enough, put up or shut up.

Kat

as I said, I don't think evidence can "prove" a religion in reality, since the process of "proving" is logical, and according to many Chrisitians and religious people I know, logic is "flawed". a religion is about believing without knowing
this argument between science and religion has been going on for a long time, basically the religion side argues that God is supernatural, and is beyond our senses and our ability to prove, and of course they do not believe logic is the way to solve things, but faith is.

I guess I am definitely an agnostic, not an athiest, since I do not believe that God's existence is provable because the concepts of religion and science/logic are too different and separated. However, I am a firm believer in logic and science, and a supporter for peace and human morality.
there are so many good non-supreme-God religions or beliefs or organizations out there that we should learn at least a little bit about, such as Unitarian Universalism (peace, humanism, equality, respect, and morality), and Buddhaism (enlightenment)

I personally like the principle beliefs (not sure if it's a religion) of Unitarian Universalism, which is liberal and logical.

Enigma,

Why are people atheists? I wish that were true, unfortunately only some people are atheists.

Although there are exceptions most atheists make their choice through deliberate critical reasoning. Contrast that with theists who almost entirely are the result of local culture and tradition (the mindless sheep of the world).

But really it is that the thinking people can simply see the rather obvious idiocy of traditional theism and have the courage to say so.

Kat

How can an athiest have happiness when he knows that he is just one of many. He has no purpose in life, does he?
You can still be happy as one of many, religious people are still one of many, we all are. We are all going to die sometime, if you live on or not is not important and it wont make you happy, living to be happy now is what makes people happy and anybody can do that.

Gods existance cannot be proved or disproved as all we have to go on as evidence it exists is holy texts, which were written by man and fallable, if you go by these texts god most likely doesnt exist(if as they claim it is gods words), but if you go by your own reasoning of what a god might be then it is impossible to prove either way if its there or not, it depends who's definition you use as to how provable it is.

Unitarian Universalism (peace, humanism, equality, respect, and morality)
I like the sound of that, though i dont know why you'd need to catagorise yourself eddy? Why not just be an individual and not worry about it?

I honestly don't want to argue, just wanted to see how you reason stuff, but every thing I look at seems to prove the existance of a higher being. Odd, isn't it?

I honestly don't want to argue, just wanted to see how you reason stuff, but every thing I look at seems to disprove the existance of a higher being. Odd, isn't it?

I don't believe in any type of God which is portrayed by man today.

If there is a God, it will be too complex for mankind to ever understand. We will simply never have the intelligence to comprehend something which created everything, if that is the case.

He will definitely not be a he then according to your own words.

Who said we have to comprehend Him, why not just get to know Him? We don't understand all of mathematics... does that keep people from trying to?

Who said we have to comprehend Him, why not just get to know Him? We don't understand all of mathematics... does that keep people from trying to?

When men slaughter other men in the name of something they can't comprehend it confirms my belief that religion is insane.

It doesn't add up does it!

When men slaughter other men in the name of something they can't comprehend it confirms my belief that religion is insane.
It certainly confirmed Jesus' belief. But God was on his side, not the ones slaughtering him - you would do well to keep that in mind.

But God was on his side, not the ones slaughtering him
but you can't be sure of that until you die, can you? well, when you find out, please do enlighten me. i'll be sure to get a ouija board or something. but seriously, don't you find it odd that god would set his own creations - whom "he" supposedly loves - against one another. that he would condemn all those good people whose only "fault" is a lack of faith? and so long as we are talking about undue suffering; televangelism?! :bugeye:

but you can't be sure of that until you die, can you?
I agree about televangelism, although it might serve some purpose for the people who are attracted by it - good can come out of the worst things.... But that aside: the Good News is that you can know - and you don't need an ouija board. That was the one thing that Jesus came to demonstrate: it is possible to know God, to be certain He will justify you, and to have real hope.
"And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."

So why are people atheists.

Why do religious people feel the need to have their lives justified?

Justification is having proof that you were right; it's being declared innocent even when the whole world thinks you're guilty; it's knowing God even if it sounds impossible.

It's finding evidence of something you've had faith in all along - and that's what scientists, philosophers, innocent victims, and regular people seek every day.

I know what it is, i ask why do you feel your life needs that? Why do you feel the need to be proved right? Is it really that important for christians to be right? It sounds more like god only punishes you if your wrong, when theres only one person who can decide what is right or wrong for them, and thats themselves.

People are atheists when they get some balls and learn to believe in themselves.

I suppose thats a fair point, accepting responsibility for your own actions and believing you can make yourself a decent life, rather than waiting for it to appear for you.

Who said we have to comprehend Him, why not just get to know Him?
But how do you get to know someone that cannot be seen, heard or felt in any matter, manner or form? I have heard so many people make that same comment and my response has always been the same, how? The replies to my question have usually involved the 'God is everywhere' and therefore that is how you get to know him/her/it. But that does not make sense to me as it still fails to answer my question. How do you get to know someone if they aren't there or available in any shape or form to answer any questions about themselves? Sure we have access to the religious books where man tell us their interpretation of what they deem God to be and so forth, but that is yet another interpretation of another. Because God is not available in any way for me or any other to get to know, all that is left is the imagination and broad individualistic interpretations of what we think God might be like. Hardly easy to get to know as an actual entity or individual if he is not there, to meet or just simply get to know, now huh?

We don't understand all of mathematics... does that keep people from trying to?
The difference between understanding God and understanding mathematics is that mathematics is something that is tangible. God is something that is intangible.

Who said we have to comprehend Him, why not just get to know Him? We don't understand all of mathematics... does that keep people from trying to?

There is a book out there that people read in order to better comprehend and manipulate a vast, unseen system of do's and do not's predicated on the supposed existence of an impossible being, a god that sticks his gigantic, all-powerful nose into all his creations' business.

In the end, it's just a silly book, but it does tend to provoke in it's most oblivious, or "faithful," readers a sense of comfort that they, in fact, understand and are prepared for it all.

Those who flock to 'the book,' which is in this case symbolic of all religion, do not do so whilst trying to understand anything. They do it for habit or for fear of unknown territory.

Trying to know God is foolish, but that's one thing.

Religion is NOT trying to know God. It's arbitrarily taking and flaunting somebody else's word on the subject, basing one's most important decisions on set-up, an imaginary menagerie of spirits and forces with poorly defined roles in the concrete theatre of events.

Religion, God, is the opiate of the people. It has no intelligent or practical foundation but that.

I like the sound of that, though i dont know why you'd need to catagorise yourself eddy? Why not just be an individual and not worry about it?
yeah I guess you are right, there is no need to categorize myself, but it's always good to know that there is a belief or organization out there with people who supports your opinions:)

Religion is NOT trying to know God

Your right, I do not believe in a religion, I believe in a relationship. I do not beleive that the religious book I agree with is full of laws, but demonstrations of love.

and that's one of the good things about religions... love

If we could figure out a way to tap into the power of self-satisfaction, then christianity would in fact save the world. Of course, we'd have to lock you all up as a valuable resource.

and that's one of the good things about religions... love

Oh, yes, let's all thank religions for a basic human emotion. How about we thank them for all the other emotions as well. Hate, greed, horniness? Any other basic human physiological traits that religion wants to claim as being responsible for?

Hate, greed, horniness? Any other basic human physiological traits that religion wants to claim as being responsible for?

If you believe that the god of religion AAA is only good, and that he could do nothing wrong, then it leaves the thing it created as being hateful, greedy, and horny. That would only stand true IF you believe that this god is all powerful. this would mean that the diety choose to make a creation that had the power to make choises, not just robots that follow logic.

yeah I guess you are right, there is no need to categorize myself, but it's always good to know that there is a belief or organization out there with people who supports your opinions
True, though i wont mind if nobody agrees with me, it would feel like i need backup, and it may be better to feel that everyone can just bring it on.;)
and that's one of the good things about religions... love
True, the majority teach love(though sometimes amung other things and confused messages), though should it not simply be taught without the need for it to have a religious base?

Ok self-righteous atheists who are descendants of the venomous Pharisees and Scribes...


I have a question for you.

What "evidence" would cause you to believe there is a God?


P.S. Don't be longwinding.

If it is god's will then we will believe. Is that shortwinded enough for you. :)

And please, don't link us up with the characters in your little play book. We are not part of your religion.

By the way, how could one describe the methods by which proof could be established in any less than a long-winded diatribe? The fallacy inherent in your statement is almost as great as the fallacy you try to impose upon your creator by confining it's glory into a simple book of man. Shame, shame, shame. And who's calling who self-righteous? I don't remember saying that you'll go to hell unless you believe as I do. :p

Hey man, the house is on fire, get out while you still can!

You can't prove that there isn't a God, so we're equall in our faiths.

Oh, come now. So what, I have to prove there's no santa claus? I have to prove that there's no easter bunny? I have to prove all the fictional characters ever devised don't exist? Why? The burden of proof is on those who wish to believe in an unprovable entity. Not the other way around.

And which god to disprove? YHWH (several flavors and varieties)? Allah (at least a couple of flavors)? Ganesh (part of a pantheon of gods)? Jupiter? Aphrodite? Gaia? All of them? Will disproving one disprove the other?

Alright, good point. But doesn't the fact that pretty much every civilization, from past to present, at least suggest that humans are differant than most other animals?

I don't quite understand what you're saying here. Are you saying that because every civilzation from past to present has gods of some sort raise them above animals? I will continue as though that is what you mean.

It is my belief that religion was first made a long time ago. It probably rose about the same time as language. It was a way of explaining the world. It was a way of unifying a community. It was a way of allowing some in the community to gain power over others in the community. It was a reason to kill those who are different from yourselves, who have different beliefs. It was a rationalization of why we feel the desire to spread and conquer. That the lands are ours and nobody else's. It explained why the animals would allow themselves to be hunted. It explained how children were born. It explained where we came from. It explained a lot of things. Unfortunately, it explained them from premises that were simplistic at best.

It likely did have something to do with the rise of human culture. It inspired us to create things that had never before been created. It eased our fear of death in that it spoke of life beyond life. This early seed of religion was carried with the early humans to all the areas to which they spread. It most likely gave them an advantage over the beasts and other humanoids that lived at that time.

But now, we have other needs that are not fulfilled by religion. We have the need to really understand the world, not just a rationalization of it. The early humans did not have the scientific methods which we have accumulated. They did not have the knowledge of how the water cycle works causing rain. They did not have the knowledge of physics which explains fundamental issues. They did not have the knowledge of biology which explains how we as organic creatures function. All they had was dreams and fancy. Thus were religions born.

I'd suggest that you read "The Masks of God" by Joseph Campbell. It is a 4 part series of books that details different myth structures and show how the early myths transformed into the myths that we have today. I've heard that Jung spoke of these things and Campbell is basically rehashing his work, but I've never read Jung so I can't say. It is a most informative read though. Of course, a lot of his work is based on speculation, here and there, so it's best to take it with a grain of salt. But that is not a recommendation a christian would give you about the bible, is it? That says a lot.

And is the main point that makes you wish to believe in god? That we are different from animals? That's a pretty petty reason, if it's so. It's true that we are different from other animals. But animals we are nonetheless.

That we are differant from animals has noting to do with why I believe in God. Why are there so many "key players of science" that seem to believe in a god. I mean, they obviously must know alot, and yet, they believed in a god. People such as Pasteur, Einstein, Newton, Mendel, DaVinci, Copernicus,etc.

yet they did not know everything, and that is why they could believe in a god.

I not trying to accuse you, but what I hear you saying is that you do know everything, and that is why you do not believe in God.

not quite, if i knew everything, i wouldn't believe in god.

Why are there so many "key players of science" that seem to believe in a god. I mean, they obviously must know alot, and yet, they believed in a god. People such as Pasteur, Einstein, Newton, Mendel, DaVinci, Copernicus,etc.

Some of these people most likely believed in god because they were raised to do so and even though they pushed the bounds of science, they could not push the bounds of conscience. Look at Einstein, perhaps the most famous of the lot, he refused to allow certain things in his views of relativity on the grounds that god does not play dice with the universe. He stubbornly held to emotional beliefs and was eventually superseded in his own field.

Some of the others most likely believed in god because they had to. Galileo, not in your list, was tortured by the church for attempting to say the earth revolved around the sun. Well, that and making fun of the pope. These people could go so far and no further. Their emotional ties to their culture prevented from admitting the truth to themselves.

And anyway, what god did they believe in? Did they all believe in the god of the bible? Was it their own personal translation of that god they believed in? Did they incorporate their own ideas into god, making him more than he was previously? Is that heresy?

We are humans and live in a human society. It has only been very recently that professing a nonbelief in god does not have dire consequences. It may not last that long either. I still say that the church will one day return to it's brutality of old.

Athiest (sup.)- The fullest extent of athi; most athi. "Dude, I thought I was athi until I met you....but you're hardcore; you're the athiest!"

Atheist (n.)- one who lacks the belief in God. "My cousin used to believe in God, but now he's an atheist."

i don't need any proof not to believe in something.

By the way, how could one describe the methods by which proof could be established in any less than a long-winded diatribe? The fallacy inherent in your statement is almost as great as the fallacy you try to impose upon your creator by confining it's glory into a simple book of man. Shame, shame, shame. And who's calling who self-righteous? I don't remember saying that you'll go to hell unless you believe as I do. :p

It's not a simple book simpleton. "Shame, shame, shame."


Saying "you'll go to hell unless you believe I do" is also an inaccurate statement. That purports the notion that "I" am the source of the belief or that I am of any important ultimately. You should at least get your "facts" straight.

Esp. "confining" glory into a simple book of man. By definition, God can't be defined so I don't know whether you were trying to be funny or what but sure, go ahead.. :rolleyes:

Some of these people most likely believed in god because they were raised to do so and even though they pushed the bounds of science, they could not push the bounds of conscience. Look at Einstein, perhaps the most famous of the lot, he refused to allow certain things in his views of relativity on the grounds that god does not play dice with the universe. He stubbornly held to emotional beliefs and was eventually superseded in his own field.

Some of the others most likely believed in god because they had to. Galileo, not in your list, was tortured by the church for attempting to say the earth revolved around the sun. Well, that and making fun of the pope. These people could go so far and no further. Their emotional ties to their culture prevented from admitting the truth to themselves.

And anyway, what god did they believe in? Did they all believe in the god of the bible? Was it their own personal translation of that god they believed in? Did they incorporate their own ideas into god, making him more than he was previously? Is that heresy?

We are humans and live in a human society. It has only been very recently that professing a nonbelief in god does not have dire consequences. It may not last that long either. I still say that the church will one day return to it's brutality of old.

As long as God justifies the "brutality".

But what church do you refer to? Roman Catholic?

not quite, if i knew everything, i wouldn't believe in god.

God believes in Himself. You would be contradicting your omniscience then.. :p

But what church do you refer to? Roman Catholic?

More churches than the Roman Catholic has commited brutality. The Salem witch trials weren't catholic. Shunning is a form of violence (IMO), it's not catholic. Violence is inherent in the suppression of heresy. How can you suppress heresy without violence? Ignore it? Not much suppression going on there. We live in a stage of life where suppression of heresy is at a minimum. But it will return. And all religions will join in the fun once they are able. The liberal religions of today will falter and fail when the suppression begins. If they won't act as strongly as their competitors then they will fail. The only choice is to suppress heresy just as fiercely.

So you're saying all (major) religions?

Actually, all the major monotheistic religions. Multitheistic religions aren't as inherently aggressive against those who believe differently. All things fit under the wings of the pantheon.

but if i knew everything i would know that god doesn't exist instead of just believing so. :p

But, if you knew everything, would you share the knowledge? :p

It sounds more like god only punishes you if your wrong, when theres only one person who can decide what is right or wrong for them, and thats themselves.
We're living the punishment every day. God simply provided a way back to Him. Besides, if you truly believe the only person who can decide what is right or wrong is himself, then how do you explain local courts, regional courts, high courts, international courts, war crime tribunals...?

Why are there so many "key players of science" that seem to believe in a god. I mean, they obviously must know alot, and yet, they believed in a god. People such as Pasteur, Einstein, Newton, Mendel, DaVinci, Copernicus,etc.

Newton wore a wig because that was the fashion at the time. He didn't wear a wig for some scientific reason. Newton believed in god because that was the fashion at the time too. Same goes for the rest (with or without headgear)

Modern scientists however, are mostly atheists. I used to work with a bunch of astronomers, and out of the 70 of them, I think there were just three that believed in god.

But anyway, would a clever scientist believing in god add to god's credibility? Is god going to wear a t-shirt saying 'I exist because Einstein has faith in me."?

To answer your original question, why are people atheists. Well, everybody is an atheist. If you believe in one god, you don't believe in the rest. Therefore, you are an atheist for not believing in Zeus, Pan, Loki or Ganesh.

I'm an atheist (complete, I don't have faith in any god), because I don't see any proof of there being any god(s). Also, I don't think I've ever met a religious officiary that has seemed honest, and I've met so many religious people that have the same flaws as atheists, to know that faith doesn't actually make people better people.

Add the fact that the church is corrupt tax dodging organisation, and often attempts to make it's own petty rules apply to non-believers through changes in law, I have utter contempt for organised religion, and those that practice it.

We're living the punishment every day
You might be, i feel pretty great, if believing in god means you feel this life is punishment then i pity you, you should be enjoying what you have, its a gift.
then how do you explain local courts, regional courts, high courts, international courts, war crime tribunals...?
They were all originally set up in conjuction with religion, why do you think you must swear on the bible to tell the truth? They were set up to punish the heretics and sinners, original laws in many places were adapted from the bible.

You might be, i feel pretty great, if believing in god means you feel this life is punishment then i pity you, you should be enjoying what you have, its a gift.
There goes the argument that God would not allow "all this suffering". I have to presume you are only thinking about yourself here. As for myself, I have been blessed with great friends, wonderful family, lots of love, and green hills to play in...

They were all originally set up in conjuction with religion, why do you think you must swear on the bible to tell the truth? They were set up to punish the heretics and sinners, original laws in many places were adapted from the bible.
Does that mean you're an anarchist?

but if i knew everything i would know that god doesn't exist instead of just believing so. :p

Does that mean you don't know everything since you don't know God? ;)

Actually, all the major monotheistic religions. Multitheistic religions aren't as inherently aggressive against those who believe differently. All things fit under the wings of the pantheon.


Well, that may contradict with the fact that in the end times, Christians are going to be the ones facing the sharp end of the stick.

There goes the argument that God would not allow "all this suffering". I have to presume you are only thinking about yourself here.
Im not sure what your getting at, i never said there was no suffering, i pointed out i am not being punished, i feel great, if others are being punished(or feel like they are) then there is the question why do they feel that way? And why do they blaim god? If you dont feel your being punished then good, continue to enjoy life, if you do feel your being punished then ask why, what did you do wrong?
As for myself, I have been blessed with great friends, wonderful family, lots of love, and green hills to play in...
I have those things too, If your happy dont let them go.
Does that mean you're an anarchist?
Never thought of it like that, depends on what exactly you mean by anarchy, i know i could never swear on a bible in a court of law, i would have to inform the judge it would be meaningless for me to do it, though i hope that situation never happens.

i am going somewhere with this, sorry for the delay. if i knew everything, everything that can be known, what could i offer you? i could tell you the position and velocity of every particle throughout the universe, i could tell you the size of the universe, the age of the universe, the nature of the universe. i could paint you a picture of the big bang or program an animation of the big crunch. i could explain everything that was and everything that will be. what proof can i offer you of god's existence? none. :D

What "evidence" would cause you to believe there is a God?


God must demonstrate his own existence, show himself.



You can't prove that there isn't a God, so we're equall in our faiths.

That's silly.

I believe that minuscule pink unicorns are the media of the electromagnetic force.
They hop from atom to atom in an exceedingly cute manner, manifesting effects like magnetism and light.

Do you believe in them... no?
You disbelieve them, correct?


You do the sensible thing and assume the negative view.
I, inexplicably, assume the positive one.

I am a 'punicornist,' and you are an 'apunicornist.'

Seem familiar?

So, buddy, who has a "faith"... and who doesn't?
Are we still equall?

It's not a simple book simpleton. "Shame, shame, shame."

Saying "you'll go to hell unless you believe I do" is also an inaccurate statement. That purports the notion that "I" am the source of the belief or that I am of any important ultimately. You should at least get your "facts" straight.

Esp. "confining" glory into a simple book of man. By definition, God can't be defined so I don't know whether you were trying to be funny or what but sure, go ahead..

Almost missed this one.

The bible isn't a simple book? Maybe not compared to Dick & Jane, but compared to God it is.

About the going to hell part, you gather your statements from a book, but you believe in the statement and push the definition as the only right definition. It is your belief. You cannot disavow responsibility for your words and actions because the bible tells you so. The bible also says a lot of other things that you don't incorporate into your belief system. The going to hell part appeals to you, therefore you use it.

If God can't be defined, how do you explain "In the beginning was the word and the word was god." Sounds like a definition to me. Especially considering the Bible is considered to be the word of god. Therefore god.

...As for myself, I have been blessed with great friends, wonderful family, lots of love, and green hills to play in...

And lots of heretics to condemn to hell. :p

Does that mean you're an anarchist?

Surely you're not saying that laws can't exist without religion. If laws are based on religion, it doesn't necessarily mean we should throw them out. But, we should examine them and see if they are truly relevant to our existance, not the existance of ancient people who though thunder came from clouds bumping together.

Well, that may contradict with the fact that in the end times, Christians are going to be the ones facing the sharp end of the stick.

Actually, depends on how good of a christian you are, ain't it? The real good ones will be drawn straight to heaven. While the rest of us duke it out down here for another thousand years. But, we non-believers will end up in hell without trial while the not-so-good christians will have a trial to determine their fate. The not-so-good christians being the ones who believe a little differently than the good christians.

But, that's all besides the point. Your prophecy has no value to nonbelievers. I'm speaking of denial of foreign cultures and beliefs that is inherent in any religion that claims that it's god is THE god and all others are manifestations of satan. This has led to brutality in the past and will in the future.