Aetheists Are Illogical

Hi guys, I know that some of you are atheists so I was wondering if you guys could explain why you think there is no God. I was thinking the other day about how complex the universe is. The essence of existence, how the universe expands and contracts, what light is, how the human body functions and evolved to where it is today, how planets formed, how flowers and roots system work, what an atom is made of, it all seems just a little too perfect for it all to be an accident. I mean there has to be a creator to all of this. So if you're an atheist, please explain why so.

P.S. I'd rather we all keep Christianity, Islam, etc. all out of this, this isn't about religions, its about why people do not believe in God.

Thanks

Even great scientists and mathematicians look for and recognize an intelligent order in the Universe.

Quantum Physics goes even further than this by acknowledging inexplicable mysteries. Mysteries that are unpredictable according to established Mathematics.
Mysteries where seemingly lifeless things appear to have independent decision-making processes. Like the whole Universe is winking mischievously at the Scientist, toying with the futile attempts to build a logical framework for all of this.

Imagine if there is a God that is teasing us while waiting for our understanding to evolve into something more sophisticated than the medieval ideas of violence, fire and brimstone. Waiting for us to move on from that spiritual equivalent of believing that the world is flat.

And waiting for us to stop being so damn angry about not having understood everything from the beginning, and then feeling duped! (and who should blame us?)

I would be very pleased and reassured to know that a God like this really exists.

But it is rather more difficult when one adds savagery into the picture don't you think? How would you place God in the Dinosaurs age? (which occupied this Earth a lot longer than our time here)
And what about our wildlife which must prey upon each other in order to survive?
Does this reveal a God which underlies all the Worlds mysteries, but also happens have an appetite for fearsome ferocity and violence?

Or does it merely reveal our human need to believe that everything is under control, and is following a bigger plan?

my answer to you is simple...reverse the question and answer it. why does it have to have a creator? why does the world have to be ruled by something? your title of 'Aetheists Are Illogical' is a questionable thing to say.

I think religion is illogical so to speak. Anything in any religion is just based on belief not facts so you could say that religion is illogical because why do people believe in something that no one in our lifetime and ever say they have seen? A religion where people pray for things to happen and if they do they thank god but whats to say that if they didnt pray it would of happened anyway?

so my simple answer is why can't there be no god?...

and you cant really talk about god if your talking about religion when god is associated with religion even if they don't believe in god.

Well when I think of the word "atheist" I think of somebody that likes to place themselves higher than other people b/c they view themselves more sophisticated and evolved past the stone-aged mindset that religion seems to hold people in; however, I think that it illogical to say that there is no God and that the Universe is just a result of some big bang of energy.

Like I said I don't want this to be the battle of Jesus vs. Muhammad, I just would like an atheist to explain to me why they don't believe in God and how they think the Universe was created. I simply do not think that a null void (ABSOLUTELY NOTHING) can just all of a sudden BANG!...universe.

Why does God have to exist, he doesn't HAVE to, but how else would you explain existence?

I honestly agree with you Decius, I think on a core level all people think that there is a God in some form or sort. Where is the proof for God? EXISTENCE. Life would not exist on earth if the planet was 3-5 miles away from the sun or 3-5 miles closer to the sun...coincidence? The human body system is so complex that even the most intelligent scientists that atheists like to credit so much cannot explain how certain parts work. You may not be able to see God but he can be seen in life. For example, if you saw footprints on the beach, there had to be someone there to make them right? If you see "existence" there had to be someone to generate atleast to the smallest degree, something that would start existence. You can't see the wind, but we know it exists.

I may sound confusing and I'm sorry if I rambled or lost you, but please feel free to criticize me and add advice...freedom of speech right?

To avoid the lacking clarity on the definition of atheist in the header statement, I feel, anyone who makes claims of factual reality one way or the other when they actually do not know, is illogical. Generally occuring due to intense indoctrination and influence, or simple self delusion.

Though I also feel some other things on that subject allowing for the possibility of them being correct when they believe it, because of the power of our own minds and the fact that they may very well be creators of existance and reality. But speaking in terms of logic and the given understanding of the most consistent laws of nature and science, or even religion, the above statement stands.

quote:

---

If you see "existence" there had to be someone to generate atleast to the smallest degree, something that would start existence.

---

This mentality amuses me. Confucious or someone of that calibur made the same assesment. Saying that God was self evident, something had to begin the motion of the universe.

Well that's all well and good guys, but who then moved and created this god, your very own assertion requires something other than god to create god. Something complex enough to create something as complex as the universe needs something even more complex ad nauseum.

Religious people hate and have no answer worth a shit for the questions of the existance of god. Which tickles me. They just say, he always existed, I could say the same for the universe, but I would be talking out of my ass, because how the hell would I know.

Wisest is she who knows she does not know.

Oh, to correct myself, most religious people that I've spoken with don't hate the question of god's origin or the need for a maker of god by their own logic, most actually struggle with even comprehending it, many look at me as though the thought had never even crossed their mind.

Decius: what, in your schema, is the difference between an atheist and an agnostic? Is it that while the latter assigns equal likelihoods to the existence and non-existence of God, the fomer says that although non-existence is more likely, no-one can answer the question irrefutably?

I, myself, have always wondered how the existence of some kind of creator could be denied. I never found a reasonable answer to the question as to how anything could arise out of nothing. If before the beginning there was nothing, then how could there have been any beginning at all without some conscious action?--for 0 + 0 will always add up to 0 unless 1 is added, and only some conscious effort could add that 1.

For me, however, if there is a god, then he must be a complex union of the forces of what may be called "light" and "dark"--the yin and yang unified into some universal equillibrium. Thesis and antithesis are two necessary aspects, or "sides" of the the same "coin" of Truth. I think someone mentioned an interesting fact of organic existence: In order for any living thing to continue its existence it must kill and devour other life forms. Life must act as death's facilitator to survive. Moreover, the opposing forces of animation and inertia operate within all living things, battling from the moment of birth to the point of death--all living things are a strange synthesis of the forces of life and death. Nature itself can be both nurturing and destructive, beautiful and equally terrifying. Animal life, in many respects, is both mysteriously attractive and cruelly savage. If there is a god I'm sure he must be very enigmatic and complex.

"I think someone mentioned an interesting fact of organic existence: In order for any living thing to continue its existence it must kill and devour other life forms. Life must act as death's facilitator to survive."

- just thought that was a very cool statement.

God is the term that confuses me most about religion. The definition of God varies between everyone (at least this is what I've seen, I was never part of any religious group where we all agreed on the issue but I was always interested in any person's ideas) and I think that that's a good thing. One could probably take this evidence as a hint to what or who God really is but one could equally say that all are misdirected to that one... perfect... truth...

As satanic as it probably sounds, I believe every living organism is God and created its own unique universe. I like this belief because it gives me the freedom to shape my existence any which way I please (basically I don't have to wait for death to reap what I sow.) This belief of mine doesn't mean that I'm immoral and care only of myself either... I know how you fervent religious types go straight for the morals. I respect each God I encounter (probably not as much as I should) and try to cause as little harm as possible.

Ever since I was a kid I always hated the idea that I could never be equals with God. I could only be with God... eh, I'll pass. I think I remember Decius saying something like "it creates an inferiority complex" and I can go with that. I like having the freedom of knowing I can attain something I want if I work towards it. If someone tells me I can't do something, I want to do it even more.

quote:

---

I, myself, have always wondered how the existence of some kind of creator could be denied.

---

That's easy, people have a bad habit of making claims they cannot substantiate nor fully comprehend.

But this goes for those who would proclaim that there is obviously "some kind of creator" as well.

How and why existance exists are not questions we have answers to, this includes all subject matter on creators.

quote:

---

I never found a reasonable answer to the question as to how anything could arise out of nothing.

---

I'm betting you haven't heard a good explanation as to the existance of anything, regardless of from what, why, how, or from where it arose.

quote:

---

If before the beginning there was nothing, then how could there have been any beginning at all without some conscious action?

---

This is just a rephrasing of the question of how could seemingly complex existance occur if not created by an intelligent force or being.

This question, though a good one, is pointless when referencing a creator. Because, as addressed above, the very logic used to affirm that existance is proof of a creator demands just as equally that, if indeed this creator exists, it too requires a creator, ad infinitum.

quote:

---

0 + 0 will always add up to 0 unless 1 is added, and only some conscious effort could add that 1.

---

Where did the 1 come from? You are confusing two issues. 0+0 still equals zero, it is then that zero that would be added to 1 to make something. The question is not what something adds to once something exists to be added, but how and from where did the something come to be, to be added.

You offer, "concious effort". Well where did that come from? And where did it get a 1 to add?

Do you see where you are stepping on your own logic?

Hopefully someone will at least acknowledge this point before again asking how existance can exist without a creator?

What point you ask?

How does a creator exist without its own creator?

Regardless of what people label themselves as (atheist, Christian, agnostic, other) I cant see the logic in anyone who believes with all certainty that god exists or doesn't exist.

You can THINK, or choose to BELIEVE that god does or doesn't exist. But you cant KNOW that god does or doesnt exist.

There just isn't enough proof either way.

I really would like to believe there is a God and some reason for being here. And that when I die I will continue on in some form. It gives me comfort to think that, and thus my heart is probably leaning toward that possibility because it wants to. But my mind, sadly thinks that when we die that's it.

And I wrestle with the idea there is this "grand creator" who made us and this universe and everything will be ok when I die and I will understand finally.

And I wrestle and I wrestle and I wrestle.

And it gives me no end of turmoil and confusion.

But there are others who, I believe, have taken the easy road and decided it is too painful to not know- so have fooled themselves into thinking that they are 100 percent certain of something they cannot see, feel, hear, taste or touch.

I think it makes their life easier. And if they choose that path then I accept that. It is their choice to believe in something. They may be right after all. And I really wish I could know either way too.

But I only have the senses I have and I only have the brain I was given to analyse the sensations that I receive in this world I live.

I see humans as ants crawling around trying to see a mountain in the distance. We just dont have the senses or brain power to see on the same level as that mountain. And regardless of the things we tell ourselves, at this time in our evolution we just cannot know if that mountain is there or not. Or even understand what it is.

Sadly some ants come to their own conclusions about what is out there and try to force others into believing they are right and have found the way. But if that were true, thousands of years ago someone would have come up with a way of life we are meant to live, which would have made humanity into one cohesive, unified and happy society. Everything would make sense right now.

But instead, us ants still fight other colonies and hives over the most trivial things. Even over what the mountain is like and what it wants of us. Stupid? If I was looking down at the ants, Id say it was.

So until I find some irrefutable proof either way, I am honest enough with myself to say that I really dont know wether God or some higher power exists or doesn't exist.

And it isn't shameful that I haven't a clue when it comes to some unseen force driving the universe. No shame comes from not knowing. Only doubt and confusion.

But I guess I can be safe in the knowledge that I am 100 percent RIGHT when I say I dont know wether God exists or doesn't exist.

Better that, than think of the question as some multiple choice in highschool where I fool myself into thinking Im 100 percent right when there's is a 50/50 chance Im totally wrong.

quote:

---

It is their choice to believe in something.

---

A belief cannot be chosen. A belief is merely the working model of the best attempt to understand an unknown truth based on the most convincing evidence experienced.

Its a concept confused with devotion and or submission to something such as an object/idol and or idea/theory/religion. And its a misconception of the "believers" so steeped in irony, hypocricy, misunderstood and denounced unity, and seemingly revelled in forced division that it boggles the mind.

And it is why this will never be true.

quote:

---

They may be right after all.

---

No, they can never be right. They could have at least been half right, but the logic they use in attempt to venerate their "beliefs" and invalidate those of others and indeed denegrate reality itself, ends up only proving themselves wrong too.

The irony of the ardent believer is, the more fundamentalist you become the more you betray the teachings of your faith.

When you put your faith in the tool meant to teach rather than lesson being taught, you have missed the plot.

Decius: whether it's precision or pedantry you think I am in aid of, you surely can't deny that the concept "atheist" is superfluous unless proprely clarified. That said, your definition ignores the pre-eminence of a host of militantly God-denying atheists: Feuerbach, Nietzsche, AJ Ayer, Sartre... etc. I myself am the sort of atheist who regards God as an unhealthy fiction. Only confusions (of a metaphysical habitation) can lead us to make positive statements about God. We must settle for a negative assertion: namely, that given a sober appraisal of the facts, no evidence for His existence can be found.

quote:

---

given a sober appraisal of the facts, no evidence for His existence can be found.

---

I feel this is an inaccurate statement because we cannot say that no evidence exists, we can say that of all the things we see, we don't see something we understand and identify as god or as direct evidence of one for sure.

This is because there is all kinds of information and things that we can see and know to exist, but have no clue as to what they are or what they mean. Any number of which could end up being proof of god once the right knowledge and understanding is obtained.

quote:

---

I myself am the sort of atheist who regards God as an unhealthy fiction.

---

For me, god itself is an unknown, and is perfectly safe as a believed possibility or probability, perhaps even a "believed" reality under healthy circumstances. Its religion, or more accurately, the parts of religion that step on their own main messages of love and good works that is unhealthy.

Calling fiction and metaphore fact is unhealthy too, specifically in a social context liars and delusional people are a hinderance and can even be a danger due to irrational reactionary behavior and the ability to manipulate and easily be manipulated. Not to mention how much it can hurt a search for truth in the world.

I know this has been said a ton of times, but God can neither be proven nor disproven, therefore meaningless. In my opinion, however, It seems like people who do believe in God is because they're taught when they die, if they were good enough, will be let into the lord's kingdom where everything is "perfect". Getting away from this shit hole we've made for ourselves because we Think it's caused by a greater evil. wrong. Just a positive reinforcement to keep order given our ability of "choice"

I got this idea from a shirt I looked at on "echelonshift.com" stating, " ...What makes us men is our ability to accumulate knowledge using neither our nose, our ears, by touch, by seeing or by vigorously tasting. We as humans have wondrous brains, and with them we may create knowledge... " So if we weren't able to use our brains as we can now, do you think we would even have the idea of believing in God? no.

Developing this gift, we're able to think of what ever we want and "believe" in what ever we want. Being able to comprehend that there's a chance there might not be an existence after our death has put all of us in the state we are in now. Imagine what would happen if any other animal on this planet could think like that, expecially if the animal or species has been around longer than us and had more time.

I don't think there's a God because it's just a coping device we've created because we're so much in denial that there might not be an existence beyond the one we perceive now. The will to reproduce and carry on life knowing there's nothing after this would be diminished.

Ironwood: At root, I don't think we disagree. Any empircial statement has a purely putative status: that is, although a set of facts, which we shall call x, subsists and verifies our statement, we cannot say conclusively that a set of facts, y, will not come into being and confute it. Prima facie, this approach doesn't seem to tally with the scientific approach. After all, scientific enterprises are predictive, whereas I seem to be saying that emprical study aligns hypothesis and fact by a process of trial and error. The difference is, however, rather more apparent than real. For both see it as their station to build as felicitous a picture of reality as possible, amending, by turns, supposition and experiment, until, ex hypothesi, they coalesce.

I submit that no empirical statement about the existence of God can be made. If you disagree, kindlly put one forward. First cause? Well this view obtains only when we conceive of causation as a temporal chain - a mistake, if I may be so bold. For this envisages the universe as a giant pool table, when, in fact, casuality might work in counter-intuitive ways. This does not violate the determinacy of the chain: one part of the chain still materially implies the next part. It is just that causation might conceivably work in ways that are not open to view. For example, we could not map the path of a pool ball by computing every detail down to the speed of the ball, to the angle, to the friction on the table etc etc. In order to do this we would have to solve, and dispel the mystery therein, of quantam dynamics. Of course, we could model a very precise simulation of the ball's path, and for practical application nothing better would be required: but that would not disguise the fact that it was a simplification. As Hume said, causation is the realm of probability and not necessity.

You run into problems when you say that God is the unknown. In philosophy it is called "Plato's Beard", and it runs something like this: if the unknown is truly unknown, then it is also unknowable: therefore it is logically impossible to posit it.