Let us ignore all of the assumptions you are making here (ie. that natural forces could possibly be different than they are now, that life in any form could not exist under different conditions, that these conditions were set to support life rather than life evolving to fit those conditions, that life had to exist at all, and that complex things cannot occur "by accident"). Even if all of these things are true, why does that 'something' have to be a god? In order for 'god' to be a justifiable answer, you need to provide something which demonstrates that it was a god that did this and not something else. Saying 'I do not know what did this so god is an acceptable answer' is not an acceptable answer. And if it was a god, why does that god have to still exist?

^ YOU'RE GOING TO HELL!!!!!!!!!!!











LOL. Sorry. Couldn't resist. Temptation's a mother****er.

All I'm saying is that if you choose to believe the universe wasn't intelligently designed, what is your basis for this belief? I can't prove there is a God, but I have to come up with a conscious decision about what I believe in. I can't say, "There's no proof God exists therefore he probably doesn't." I've made an intelligent decision to believe in God based on my personal experiences, things I've witnessed, my sense of logic, etc.

So for those that are atheists, how did you arrive at this decision?

An atheist is one that believes there is no God, so there must be some evidence for this.

Someone who says I'm not convinced either way is not an atheist.

There are different types of atheists. What you are describing is what we call around here a "hard atheist": one who makes the positive assertion that there is no god. And yes, I would agree that one who holds this position should put forward evidence if they want to convince others of their position.

Most of the atheists here are what we call "soft atheists": that there is not enough evidence to believe that there is a god. Such atheists generally hold out the possibility that if such evidence arose, they would then believe.

As for how did life evolve: that is what the Theory of Evolution tells us. A great book is Richard Dawkins: The Greatest Show on Earth. It takes the reader through step by step and explains the theory in layman's terms. The vast scientific community supports this theory.

Hope this helps!

The basis is that every time we examine the question 'why is something the way it is' we find a natural explanation, not a supernatural one. That does not exclude supernatural causes, but since we know of natural causes, and no supernatural causes, natural causes are the favorite.

This is not true. 'I believe there is a god' and 'I believe there is not a god' is not a dichotomy. It is possible to hold neither position.

I'm being a bit of a nit here, but that's because I think this is an important distinction which escapes most people. Proof is a mathematical term. What skepticism is about (which is the basis for most atheists on this board as to why they do not believe in a god) is providing evidence to support the validity of a claim before belief is justified. We do not believe in a god because we do not see any evidence that he exists. Similarly, most people do not believe in leprechauns, unicorns, or the loch ness monster because they have not seen sufficient evidence to justify believing in those either.

As described above, our (skeptic's) sense of logic does not lead us to that conclusion. As far as personal experiences and things you have witnessed go, that is one of my biggest problems with many religions. For instance, many forms of Christianity teach that I am going to Hell if I do not believe in Jesus and accept him as my savior. But you claim to have had personal experiences and witnessed things which led you to believe in a god. I have not. Is it really justifiable to send me to Hell and you to Heaven because you had these experiences and I did not? Would an omnipotent being who should know something about responsibility really think this was fair? A good idea?

I took the time to read and understand the common arguments for the existence of god, realized they were full of logical fallacies, and because of that found them completely unconvincing.

Arouet gave a good explanation, but I would like to expand to explain why this is wrong. Theism is the belief that there is a god. A theist is essentially one who can say 'I believe a god exists.' The prefix 'a' means without. Therefore, the word 'atheism' means 'without a belief in a god'. So anybody who cannot say 'I believe a god exists' is without such belief, and is an atheist. It is important to understand that 'I do not believe a god exists' and 'I believe a god does not exist' are not the same statement. I am one of the few 'strong' atheists on this board, in the sense that I believe there is not a god. This rarely comes up though.

I "became" (for lack of a better word atm) an atheist after a few weeks of watching George Carlin and Bill Hicks stuff on video. Then after watching some of Richard Hawking's videos and reading "The Greatest Show on Earth", it became "official". I felt that what I had started to feel in my early teens was "confirmed". Like when I found out there was no Santa; professional wrestling was staged; all magic is is trickery and illusions. I couldn't figure out exactly how I had been duped. But I felt like I found out that I was duped.

Now then.. I wouldn't stake my life on whether a god exists (or has ever existed), but I would stake my "afterlife" on it. I like to gamble, but I'm not one to throw away all of my money on a blind bet. My "afterlife" though, isn't worth that much to me. I'd almost put that sht on red or black. That's how certain I feel about what happens to us when we die. We just die like everything else. We don't disappear.. but we don't go anywhere or become anything else either. If there is such a thing as a soul, in my opinion, then all life (ALL living things) has a soul. Would that soul cease to exist when we die? I wouldn't bet my life on that one either.

** I also wanted to add that the reason I sometimes come off as two-faced or hypocritical on some of these "religious" issues is because I can sympathize and have empathy for the believers (*). Not so much for the radical or zealot types, but more for the ones who aren't sure or don't try to proclaim or project their beliefs onto others. My motto is "to each his own". I'll listen to what you have to say and respect your opinion as long as you do the same for me.

* I think it's empathize and "have sympathy for.."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_nqySMvkcw

I lol'd when he said ".. and you just look at images of these aborted feces.. because um um of.. fetuses.." LMAO that was just insane funny to me. I almost feel bad.

That guy's pretty cool. I'll have to watch more of his stuff later.

Thanks


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xG...eature=related Dawkins, lol. That was classic.

I've asked myself this same question, but in the end I believe God will be just and fair towards those who've never had a chance or are mentally incapable of believing. He knows what truly lies within you.

God created us to have a loving relationship with us, and to give us eternal life in his presence if we choose. But he gives us the choice. He says that those who deny God are going to hell. But what is hell? Hell is simply a spiritual realm completely devoid of God's light, love, warmth, hope, and purpose. Its what those who deny God ask for. They want nothing to do with him, so be it.

Presumably this would mean that it is also devoid of his followers. People that constantly try to guilt you into changing your "sinful" lifestyle (not gay, gambling for a living fyi...don't want any weird PM's), who when asked to offer some helpful advice on a subject based on their experience tell you to pray about it, who cause you to grow up in constant guilt and fear of hell, who patronize you with snide comments about how bad you are, who throw you to the curb when you're not right in lockstep with what they believe, who write you long drawn out emo e-mails when you don't go to church and who lie right to your face because if they didn't you couldn't possibly think of a good reason to think the way they do? Sounds like paradise to me. Where do I sign up?

thats Neil Degrase Tyson and he is an incredibly brilliant man and he proves exactly why that we are not intelligently designed for life in this universe much less planet.

Yeah I have to agree that he's making a strong argument against intelligent design (which is what I believed in not too long ago).

And I apologize for my last post (that got deleted). I'm assuming it got deleted because I was being stupid. Too many Kahlua n Starbucks fraps last night. I'll try to cut back on posting random "trollish" garbage from now on. I've been a little angry and bitter since my stripper **** buddy dumped me

I would say don't judge an entire group of people by the actions of a few. The majority of good christians are patient, non-judgemental, helpful, and very easy to get along with. You just don't here a lot from them because they don't like asserting themselves on others.

You're taking the annoying, self righteous traits of the ones you notice and applying them to the whole group.

That would be like me saying "Lagydurrr is a hate spewing, trash talking douchebag therefore atheism sucks because that is the group of people he's representing."

Didn't your god set the precedent by judging all of humanity by the actions of two people?

Judgement will be in the afterlife, and will be on an individual basis. God gives ample oppurtunity for us to choose how we will spend it.

He doesn't even say that we have to live a perfect life. All we have to do is believe. That's it.

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

People make it more complicated than it really is.

you're glossing over the fact that God punished all mankind for the sins of adam and eve. Its very simple and completely unjust.

Second- I really wonder how anyone thinks much of the Jesus story. God gave his only Son so that believers wouldn't perish? What did he give up exactly? He knew his son (who is him anyways) has eternal life. He sacrificed his earthbound life and went to Heaven. Wow, big sacrifice.

Oddly enough, you have no issue that the god you imagine is all loving requires blood sacrifice to forgive you for sins that your furthest ancestor back committed.

If any person killed their own child so that they could forgive another person for their transgression, you'd call them sick. Yet you celebrate it with your god.

Just weird.

Even if you knew your son would go to heaven, would you still want him to die a slow, agonizing, humiliating death?

If I really was God then I would know that his death was meaningless in the face of eternity. Its like asking someone in the course of their lifetime to suffer a piece of dust in their eye... discomfort gone in the blink of an eye.

Remember... God knew before he forcefully impregnated Mary what would happen. It was all part of HIS plan.

And remember... its all his fault. He's the one who demanded sacrifice. He could have just forgiven everyone from the kindness of his heart. But he thought it was better to, as you say, have his son die a "slow, agonizing and humiliating death" That's all on your god and something you celebrate.

It doesn't make any sense to me. It sounds pretty sick to me. If you can explain why you appreciate a god that demands blood sacrifice, how you think that is loving, why you think it makes sense that his son has to die like this for him to forgive the flawed people HE created.

And... you're still avoiding addressing that god punishes billions of humans for the sins of two people. Explain again how this is justice and how this represents the acts of the most loving god. Cause here's the thing.... I can easily think of ways to picture a god that's MUCH more loving then this monster you venerate.

My sister is a Jehovah's Witness. Their whole thing is saving people because the end of days is near. She said that God created us to live forever on Earth, but then Adam and Eve sinned against him, and then that all changed. Now we die because he took away our immortality. So I asked my sister one day, "At what point did he inflict the universe with the same fate we have? At what point did he change things in the universe to make them work against us? Was the universe ever a great place for humanity (his creation) to strive? Or did it all just go downhill at once when Adam and Eve ****ed up?

Good post Kurto.

in case you were all wondering, I didn't read this until right now.

You realize that the standard and sensible response is, "design something better"? It's only fair. If you spot the flaws, then go ahead redesign and re-engineer the original model.

How do you come to this conclusion? What makes you believe that "he could have just forgiven everyone" and that none of this was necessary?

Also, what if it had nothing to do with God's willingness to forgive, but our inability to accept this forgiveness? What happens then?

I don't know about #2 (meaning what does that mean?) but re: #1: c'mon...

God's the guy who makes the rules, right? He doesn't need any of these hoops does he? Look at that other thread from that universalist spammer: everyone could get to go to heaven.

You can't have it both ways: either God makes the rules, or he doesn't. God creates us the the audition process built into the system right? Look at your children Jib, can you ever dream of creating them and make them beg for your acceptance? I honestly can't understand how christians don't have a problem with this! I'm serious, I'm not being insulting here. I really don't get it.

I have addressed this before, it has to do with the Christus Victor view of atonement.

Do you believe that God chose to be God?

First, answer the above first. Second, my view of God is not analogous to what you are saying at all, so I cannot address your issue. Could you imagine locking your kids in the closet if the chose one day to have nothing to do with you?