Atheism

[fr0d0]

Ah cool - I'll leave you to discuss that with him then. I look forward to reading your thoughts

[chatpilot]

Saerules, basing myself on my previous post I don't see the necessity for a god of any nature.He in my mind does not exist at all and I say this with absolute conviction in my assumptions.In my view as I have stated several times throughout various posts in many forums; man created God not the other way around.

[Violet]

Indeed, and we can of course prove that JCM&M's primary God was created by man. But we cannot rule out the possibility that we were created by something with intelligence. We can, however, rule out that a certain form of being exists

[chatpilot]

There is nothing to rule out once you acknowledge that we are a product of nature.A link in the chain of evolution and culminating in our current form through the process of natural selection.There is neither room nor place for god or gods of any sort.Just because we don't know for certain how the universe began and how this world we call home came to be a place that was suitable for life does not incline me to attribute those mysteries to superstitious beliefs.

[Violet]

There is room for it, and plenty of place. That we cannot know for certain how the universe began, leaves open the possibility. Is it likely? Not so much. But is it possible? In some forms: certainly.

[chatpilot]

I guess I am the only atheist in this entire website that is 100 percent certain of his assertions and beliefs or in this case non-beliefs.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I guess I am the only atheist in this entire website that is 100 percent certain of his assertions and beliefs or in this case non-beliefs.

Or simply the only one unable to tell the difference between 'personal certitude' and 'certainty.

[Tiberius]

I'm with fr0d0 on this one (not surprisingly given my agnostic stance). By most definitions of gods, they are all-powerful, operating outside the known universe. Therefore they are capable of affecting something in the universe without revealing themselves, or at the very least, making it appear that something is naturally caused.

Gods are able to manipulate the evidence they leave. The entire universe could have been created by a God only a few weeks ago, with all the evidence left there pointing to a 13.7 billion year creation. It leaves God as a trickster or at the very least with a sense of humour.

This is why when I say "there is no evidence for god", I mean "there is no reasoning for God". Given that a universe with a God and a universe without a God are indistinguishable, the only way of asserting a God exists is through reasoning, which in my opinion ultimately fails.

[chatpilot]

padraic just knowing that the very concept of a god or gods is a creation of man in his infancy and ignorance of the world and universe we currently inhabit is sufficient enough to make me certain that gods do not exist.The belief in god or gods of any sort is simply groping in the dark for answers to questions that at the moment have no answers.We might see some of those answers come to fruition in the future or we may die and pass on without ever knowing for sure.But that is why I appreciate science because science is a work in progress and is not afraid to admit when it is wrong and not afraid to postulate new theories based on observations and experimentation.

Unlike religious assertions that base all of their theories and beliefs on ancient scripts that have been authored by nomadic tribes and their faith on these books of old.When you weigh the scientific view of origins versus faith and scriptures version there is no contest, science is more reasonable and logical hands down.My argument is that the very idea of god or gods originated with man and to this day is continually being used to explain the unexplainable.It's not based on facts but rather ignorance and thus the foundation of god himself is ignorance.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Thanks for your answer Kyu. For your kindness, and for your honesty.

What kindness? To paraphrase Dawkins, I may not be right but I always say what I believe to be correct ... it would be pointless to say anything else.

Of course none of those things would ever constitute evidence for God. Anything evidential has then to be included in 'natural'/ as obeying the physical nature of the Universe.

Fair enough but the ONLY reason your god is beyond that is BECAUSE YOU DEFINE IT TO BE SO ... what I dispute is the validity of the DEFINITION!! I simply DO NOT and NEVER WILL accept that a god of any kind can act upon this universe WITHOUT LEAVING A TRAIL OF EVIDENCE!

Here's the answer you're looking for:

So my answer, that I have no idea actually testifies to the fact that I do not accept it can happen without evidence and NOT to the way you twist it to mean.

Kyu