Topic: Why I'm an atheist - page 27. (Read 89184 times)

There is no need to argue about. Religion was there always there. There is always different side in every subject, different People different perception but after all these differences, what we need to do is to respect each other. Actually before, Science and Religion are helping each other to know the truth but today they both hate each other.

religion
[ ri-lij-uh n ]

noun

...

6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

When you cross the mark of the natural normalness and that it is tolarated, even encouraged, there's definitely something weird. The pro-gays say that they're common humans and brand their actions as the fight for the liberty.

It seems that you did not listened to any socialist leader recently. They say that the forgot ism is something fully natural, and thus should exist, and thus should exist. It is heavily positively branded and encouraged.

About the science : even if I admire some science theories, a big part of them are dumb and desparated anti-religion crusades.

Google the watchmaker argument.  Your watchmaker will be more complicated than anything he has created and would require another watchmaker to explain its existence, and so on.

If you follow the watchmaker argument to its logical conclusion you will end up with more questions and no answers. That is why it is useless.

I do understand your psychological infirmity and your need for firm answers, however, I urge you to study how the science is actually done.
You seem to be quite fuzzy on this particular subject.

I am confident that you will be able to understand how science works despite your innate shortcomings and the barrage of indoctrination you have been subjected to since you started to walk on your own.

Your explanation is much worse than mine.  Your watchmaker needs to have a watchmaker, who needs to have a watchmaker, this continues ad infinitum.  This does not explain anything. - Watchmaker? How do you know I have a watch? But if I had a watch, why would you think my watchmaker needs a watchmaker. What does he need a watchmaker for? He makes watches. As you say, talking about watchmakers doesn't explain anything. So, why do you even add it >>> off topic.

Your maker raises more questions than it answers.  Never mind that it is just one big, culturally driven conjecture.  Nothing to do with objective observation and analysis. - The Universe Maker answers some of the basic questions. Part of the reason science is making AI and quantum computers is that people aren't built to understand the answers to deep universe questions. Best leave that up to God.

What we observe is that life forms go through a natural progression from less complex ones to more complicated ones, sometimes with cruel results of producing human children without fully enclosed spines, two cojoined heads or other genetic disorders. Some watchmaker, LOL. - Wrong! What you find is this:
1. Some people say the thing that you said; other people say the opposite;
2. All complexity is programmed in by cause and effect. Even though it appears at times that more complex comes from less complex, the less complex just happened to be the carrier of the programming for the more complex.

The genetic programming that you talked about shows that the whole process of cause and effect is way more complex than you easily understand.

By the way, the universe is not a machine, it is a violent, inhospitable place where life has very little chance to form.  As far as we can tell, it was created by a violent expansion of spacetime from quantum fluctuations.  Galaxies, including our own, are on a collision course with each other.  Violent collisions are happening all the time, black holes colliding, supernovas going off, comets and asteroids colliding with the nearby planets and stars. Is this the "machine" you are talking about?  Or you are just talking about your garden on a flat disk. LOL - Actually, all the violence in all the nuclear bombs ever detonated precisely followed the laws of physics. Just because you might call it chaos because you can't track the violence, doesn't mean that any of it - even one electron or photon - acted outside the precise laws of physics.

All pandemonium acts entirely according to the laws of physics via a succession of cause-and-effect activities... just like any complex machine. You know that you can't understand all this, so why do you keep on trying to say that there is no God who programmed all the cause and effect to happen exactly as it has? Since you admit that you don't understand this stuff, what makes you think that you can understand that there isn't any God?... especially in the light of the logical machine-Maker analogy?

Physics to deal with Planck's lengths and times has not been discovered yet.  So we don't know how our local universe has started.  Maybe it didn't, maybe it was always there in one form or the other. - Just because we haven't discovered all the laws of physics, doesn't mean they don't exist. All you are saying is that we are very ignorant compared with the knowledge that is packed into the universe. We don't have a factual example of dumb nature making any of it. And since you admit that we don't know, why are you so against the logical idea that God made it?

People were buying your explanation more than 100 years ago when most of us were ignorant and fearful.  Education, new advances in science and technology eradicates these superstitions and pushes them to the footprints of psychiatric manuals.
  

And you are not hearing me.  I do not see any results of God's actions.

What you are doing is building up your delusion to justify it.

There is absolutely no proof that the universe was made by "Someone".  Universe is the way it is just like sand dunes.
No active agent created them, yet they seem to be designed and made by someone.


Atoms in your body were naturally formed in an ancient supernova millions of light-years away from here.  You have evolved from a single cell organism, which also formed naturally.

Hard to believe, I know, but Earth is not flat an it is much older than billion of years, so is the universe.

How can you assign any additional attributes to some abstract construct that cannot be even defined?

You don't even know what you believe and why?

God is undefined and non-detectable.  Just like anything that does not exist.

Bitcoin is different from God.  I see the benefits of Bitcoin because I understand it (as I did in 2011, LOL).

Nobody can even define what God is.

Start with that.

PS. Just because you are ignorant of science, it is not an excuse to invent answers to your questions.

I am an atheist because I cannot "feel" God.  People who talk about their feelings as though it is the "truth" don't impress me much.

Most are delusional sheep who follow the culturally-driven customes and traditions that were nailed into their brains since childhood.

Religious people lack critical thinking skills.  You don't believe me?  Ask them the why questions.

For me the question "Does God exist?" is not the important one. We can't prove it either way, and so we'll never settle any arguments or change any opinions based on answers to this question.

I think the more pertinent question is: "If we assume that God exists, then should (s)he be worshipped?"

I am an atheist, but even if it could be proven that God exists, I would still argue that they shouldn't be worshipped. Why? Because to do so is to deny our own freedom and our own responsibility for our own actions. If every murderer could say 'God designed me to be a murderer,' then no-one has any accountability. It is like being a child. Everything is always someone else's fault. But if instead we say 'I am an individual with free will, every action I take or do not take is a result of my own decisions,' then I just think that is a better and more honest way to live.

For me the question "Does God exist?" is not the important one. We can't prove it either way, and so we'll never settle any arguments or change any opinions based on answers to this question.

I think the more pertinent question is: "If we assume that God exists, then should (s)he be worshipped?"

i am a non-believer then an atheist and i will remain so at least until i see a miracle with my eyes, mens,mankind have done over the course of millennia horrible atrocities in the name of faith/religion
like burning witches, crusades, torture, the bible is full of parables, teachings of dubious interpretation, to finish someone can dispute with tangible evidence that it was not the aliens millions of years ago to put living cells in water on earth (create life)? ...