Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are a lot of atheists on this forum.


Why are you an atheist? How can you be definitively sure that God doesn't exist?

When I studied religious history on my own (i.e. long after sunday school, where you're just fed what your particular religion wants you to believe), I realized there was nothing to believe. -- it was all stories - some useful, some horrible, but all just stories - then surrounded by dogma and doctrine that were also very obviously invented by humans.

As for the existence of god -- others here have explained it well. I would add that the gods of religion (vs the pantheist god of the universe) are particularly easy not to believe in - such incredible stories, so obviously man-made.

regarding being "definitely sure" about god's non-existence, I suspect religious people, possibly clergy, got the lie started that atheists are definitely sure, because it makes us seem silly and unreasonable and easy to write off.

And atheist/agnostic -- well, as evidenced here, there are several different usages of the word. People have sort of made up their own meanings, I think, in the absence of much public discussion about the terms. I've seen several varieties of agnostics:

1) not sure - they may become atheist when they feel more comfortable with not believing or when they get some piece of information that helps them feel more convinced about the absence of gods.

2) it's a personal thing - they prefer the word agnostic over the word atheist - to each his own. I've known agnostics, who later call themselves atheists -- nothing about their beliefs has changed. They just feel OK with the word atheist in a way they did not before.

Personally, I went from believer to atheist, based on information that to me made belief no longer possible.

Sorry, but I really have to object to this characterization of agnostics. I posted earlier - I am agnostic - and it's just so incredibly condescending when people act like agnostics are just atheists who are too weak/afraid/whatever to own up to their true feelings of atheism. I've arrived at my present beliefs after quite a bit of thoughtful introspection, like many other non-believers. Please don't dismiss me as someone who doesn't have the balls to identify as atheist. It makes you seem like you don't really understand what you're talking about.

23:19 here. I posted before I read your response. I don't think the PP knows what she/he is talking about. Both of her definitions of agnostic are just flat out wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are a lot of atheists on this forum.


Why are you an atheist? How can you be definitively sure that God doesn't exist?

When I studied religious history on my own (i.e. long after sunday school, where you're just fed what your particular religion wants you to believe), I realized there was nothing to believe. -- it was all stories - some useful, some horrible, but all just stories - then surrounded by dogma and doctrine that were also very obviously invented by humans.

As for the existence of god -- others here have explained it well. I would add that the gods of religion (vs the pantheist god of the universe) are particularly easy not to believe in - such incredible stories, so obviously man-made.

regarding being "definitely sure" about god's non-existence, I suspect religious people, possibly clergy, got the lie started that atheists are definitely sure, because it makes us seem silly and unreasonable and easy to write off.

And atheist/agnostic -- well, as evidenced here, there are several different usages of the word. People have sort of made up their own meanings, I think, in the absence of much public discussion about the terms. I've seen several varieties of agnostics:

1) not sure - they may become atheist when they feel more comfortable with not believing or when they get some piece of information that helps them feel more convinced about the absence of gods.

2) it's a personal thing - they prefer the word agnostic over the word atheist - to each his own. I've known agnostics, who later call themselves atheists -- nothing about their beliefs has changed. They just feel OK with the word atheist in a way they did not before.

Personally, I went from believer to atheist, based on information that to me made belief no longer possible.

Neither definition is correct. And there is a definition of agnostic. Agnosticism is the belief that the existence/nonexistence of god is essentially unknowable. you can believe in god or not believe in god and be agnostic. It means that whether or not you believe, it is just that a BELIEF, not knowledge, because it is impossible to know if a "god" exists or not because there really is no way to confirm/prove either position. Claims for or against the existence of a god cannot be tested, proven, demonstrated. Period.

The problem is that so many people use the term in the wrong way. Agnostic doesn't mean you "aren't sure" and it doesn't mean you aren't comfortable with the word "atheist." It is a distinct philosophical position about whether humans can know and prove the existence of a god(s).

The whole arguing over proof for or against the existence of a god(s) is useless. An agnostic can be an agnostic theist or agnostic atheist. But agnostic theists recognize that they CANNOT have knowledge (provable knowledge, knowledge claims that can be proven false or true) about the existence of god.

The people you claim were agnostics weren't actually agnostics, but they didn't know what the word means.

I would also like to say that agnostic doesn't mean that you are waiting for more proof. It means you don't believe there can be "proof" one way or the other about god, that it is unknowable.

I really wish people would get this straight or just not use the word. People use philosophical labels incorrectly all of the time. They'd be better off just saying they don't know what they are or they are unsure what they are.

I'm an atheist -- well, because I don't believe in God. It's not much more complex than that, frankly. I left Christianity as a young teen after being invited to look into my heart and contemplate whether I believed in God & Jesus Christ as the son of God, and lo and behold, no belief was there. (Santa might have bumped the skepticism along a bit, too.)

Now my default position is active belief that there is no God, which seems in accord with the evidence around me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are a lot of atheists on this forum.


Why are you an atheist? How can you be definitively sure that God doesn't exist?

When I studied religious history on my own (i.e. long after sunday school, where you're just fed what your particular religion wants you to believe), I realized there was nothing to believe. -- it was all stories - some useful, some horrible, but all just stories - then surrounded by dogma and doctrine that were also very obviously invented by humans.

As for the existence of god -- others here have explained it well. I would add that the gods of religion (vs the pantheist god of the universe) are particularly easy not to believe in - such incredible stories, so obviously man-made.

regarding being "definitely sure" about god's non-existence, I suspect religious people, possibly clergy, got the lie started that atheists are definitely sure, because it makes us seem silly and unreasonable and easy to write off.

And atheist/agnostic -- well, as evidenced here, there are several different usages of the word. People have sort of made up their own meanings, I think, in the absence of much public discussion about the terms. I've seen several varieties of agnostics:

1) not sure - they may become atheist when they feel more comfortable with not believing or when they get some piece of information that helps them feel more convinced about the absence of gods.

2) it's a personal thing - they prefer the word agnostic over the word atheist - to each his own. I've known agnostics, who later call themselves atheists -- nothing about their beliefs has changed. They just feel OK with the word atheist in a way they did not before.

Personally, I went from believer to atheist, based on information that to me made belief no longer possible.

Sorry, but I really have to object to this characterization of agnostics. I posted earlier - I am agnostic - and it's just so incredibly condescending when people act like agnostics are just atheists who are too weak/afraid/whatever to own up to their true feelings of atheism. I've arrived at my present beliefs after quite a bit of thoughtful introspection, like many other non-believers. Please don't dismiss me as someone who doesn't have the balls to identify as atheist. It makes you seem like you don't really understand what you're talking about.

Anonymous wrote:I was an atheist until I spent more time around religious people who were really getting something out of it. These people didn't just go through the motions. They put there whole heart and soul into their belief, and even as a devout atheist, it touched me.

Please try harder the next time you try to impersonate a former atheist. Or better yet, stop. Atheists aren't devout - there's nothing to be devout about.

Also, the way you talk about religious people makes them sound like drug addicts, who put their heart and soul into drugs and seem to be getting a lot out of it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Take a look at any YouTube video of William Lane Craig. He is a Christian philosopher (not a theologian, but a philosopher)

Why is this distinction so important? Particularly when he has a PhD in philosophy AND a Doctor in Theology degree?

The distinction is relevant because when he has these structured debates, he does so in a way that is more philosophical than theological. He uses logic and presumes that his debate opponent would not agree to any theological premise.

I saw a craig/hitchens debate at Georgetown U in which Hitchens ate Craig's lunch, which was perfectly obvious to the many assembled believers there, who left with their heads held low.

At any rate, a logical argument about an illogical premise would not be convincing to me

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why isn't god a woman? If I were to believe in God I would believe in a female version.

I loved Sheryl Crowe as God in Dogma!

It was Alanis Morrisette

Because there is no logical explanation for any sort of religion to be true. Atheism is the only thing that makes sense.

Anonymous wrote:Why isn't god a woman? If I were to believe in God I would believe in a female version.

I loved Sheryl Crowe as God in Dogma!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMO, there are very few atheists. At most, they're agnostic.

No, people just say they are agnostic over atheists as it is more socially acceptable.

I'm agnostic. I couldn't care less about "socially acceptable". I really think it's extremely unlikely that there's a god. But it is possible. All I know is that none of us really know, and will almost certainly never know. Hence, agnostic.

That's exactly how I feel, too! And I've had some serious health issues that one'd think would 'enlighten' me.. but, if anything, they made me even more agnostic than before.

Anonymous wrote:There are a lot of atheists on this forum.


Why are you an atheist? How can you be definitively sure that God doesn't exist?

When I studied religious history on my own (i.e. long after sunday school, where you're just fed what your particular religion wants you to believe), I realized there was nothing to believe. -- it was all stories - some useful, some horrible, but all just stories - then surrounded by dogma and doctrine that were also very obviously invented by humans.

As for the existence of god -- others here have explained it well. I would add that the gods of religion (vs the pantheist god of the universe) are particularly easy not to believe in - such incredible stories, so obviously man-made.

regarding being "definitely sure" about god's non-existence, I suspect religious people, possibly clergy, got the lie started that atheists are definitely sure, because it makes us seem silly and unreasonable and easy to write off.

And atheist/agnostic -- well, as evidenced here, there are several different usages of the word. People have sort of made up their own meanings, I think, in the absence of much public discussion about the terms. I've seen several varieties of agnostics:

1) not sure - they may become atheist when they feel more comfortable with not believing or when they get some piece of information that helps them feel more convinced about the absence of gods.

2) it's a personal thing - they prefer the word agnostic over the word atheist - to each his own. I've known agnostics, who later call themselves atheists -- nothing about their beliefs has changed. They just feel OK with the word atheist in a way they did not before.

Personally, I went from believer to atheist, based on information that to me made belief no longer possible.

Why isn't god a woman? If I were to believe in God I would believe in a female version.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Word 15:38. the whole notion of an all powerful, all loving, all knowing god is an impossibility, a logical fallacy. He can't be all three.

Only according to limited human logic

What Bible are you reading... God dies cause suffering...
Nevermind... I don't even feel like getting into it...
But I will say, if you don't believe in God how can you presume to know his plan?

I don't presume to know His plan because, you're correct, I don't believe such a plan exists because I don't believe such an entity exists.

However, you believe in God, and you don't know His plan, either. You simply accept that (a) He has one and (b) it is based on His being an "all powerful, all loving, all knowing" entity. You have faith in that.

My point, as I said at 15:38, is that if God is omnipotent and omniscient, and all things are according to His plan, then all natural catastrophes are His doing - either through causation or (since He is omnipotent) through inaction. At the very least, a "loving God" would warn people the disaster is coming so they can prepare or get out of the way. So, we must assume that the suffering, pain, death and loss associated with natural disasters are part of God's plan, otherwise why would a loving entity allow them to happen?

What I find annoying is that after such a catastrophe that God either didn't prevent or at least didn't warn people about, the faithful thank God that the damage wasn't worse, and for sparing those who survived, without any mention of the fact that God was responsible (either through commission or omission) for all of the tragedy.

So, if God exists, (and, no, I don't believe He does), I would argue that if God is omnipotent, he causes significant suffering and if His "divine plan" requires the suffering of children, in particular, then I'd call Him a sadist for being an omnipotent entity that can't achieve his plan without torturing children. If God is omniscient (but not omnipotent), then I'd again call Him a sadist for allowing all of those disasters that kill/cause children to suffer to happen without at least warning people, and for not having a plan that doesn't require torturing children.

Thus, if God is either omnipotent or omniscient, He's got a funny way of showing His love for those who worship Him. You get to take it on faith that all this suffering is for a good cause in the end.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Word 15:38. the whole notion of an all powerful, all loving, all knowing god is an impossibility, a logical fallacy. He can't be all three.

Only according to limited human logic

So why would humans believe?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Word 15:38. the whole notion of an all powerful, all loving, all knowing god is an impossibility, a logical fallacy. He can't be all three.

Only according to limited human logic

It's the inverse of the story of the boy and the starfish, where the boy is faced with a beach full of stranded starfish and starts throwing them back one at a time. When someone observes that there are so many dying starfish that he can't make a difference, the boy says, "It made a difference to that one."

If God has a beneficent master plan for humanity, it involves the suffering of individuals. While the overall goal may be good, the methods make a difference to the few who are sacrificed for the greater good. Thus, God is causing the suffering. It may be in service to an overall greater good and master plan that we can't comprehend, but in the moment, God is causing pain and suffering to further His goals, and the person doing the suffering is unlikely to say, "I'm happy to be suffering/dying for the greater good of God's plan."

What Bible are you reading... God dies cause suffering...
Nevermind... I don't even feel like getting into it...
But I will say, if you don't believe in God how can you presume to know his plan?