Are the atheists beliefs the same as this analogy?
This person doesn't know who his/her dad is and can't find any proof about where his/her dad lives/works etc so the person assumes that he/she has no dad. Isn't this basically how atheists explain their reasoning? I mean look around and tell me this all happened by chance.
This is an honest question, not an insult.
By the way, all the questions asked yesterday under this username were not asked by me. My brother got my password...
2006-12-19 12:53:45 · 24 answers · asked by L-dog =) 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Hi L-dog...yes, you made a perfect analogy. GMA
2006-12-19 12:55:30 · answer #1 · answered by Morning Gloria 3 · 1⤊ 11⤋
No, it is actually very different. Atheists believe that the Bible (and other religious documents) arn't sufficient proof to believe in a god. Looking around. Not telling you that it happened by chance, but telling you that you have no idea how it happened and neither do I, so why make stuff up? Personally, I like facts. I do say that true atheism does not make much sense though. Most atheists use the term atheist because they (or the people to whom they are speaking) do not know the term agnostic. Agnostics are more open and believe that there is not sufficient proof to believe there is or is not a god.
2006-12-19 13:18:26 · answer #2 · answered by crushinbutterfly 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The analogy is incomplete. Listen to me.
Atheism is similar to THIS analogy.
This person doesn't know who his/her dad is and can't find any proof about where his/her dad lives/works. His mom, and EVERYONE in the world says that the dad would never leave his son/daughter , and would never let anyone down, and would never let his son/doughter be unahppy, and that this dad has the infinite ablity to sustain these descriptions.
Yet this person is unhappy, and has been let down, and has been left alone with his/her mom. Therefore, this person assumes that no such dad, as everyone described, exists...
It doesn't necessarily mean that this person has absolutely no dad, it just means that the person that people describe definitely doesn't exist.
This analogy is still incomplete, because we know for a fact that everyone must have had, at one point or another, both a mother AND a father. This analgoy makes that assumption. However, the true analogy, regarding god, cannot make the assumption that there must be a creator...
Analogies aside, this is what I'm trying to say.
If god is supposed to be omniscient, omnipotent, perfect, and totally benevolent, then not one of his creations can have any traits or qualities that could be described as evil...
By looking at the world around us, we can decisively conclude that it was no such god that created this place. There are, "evil," people all over.
Some will say that evil is just a lack of good, and that it came to be by the individual not choosing the path of god, etc. etc.
However, if the supposed god is truly omniscient, then he would have known this would happen. If he knows these things will happen, yet he still makes the people that choose wrong over good, then he is still responsible for putting that evil into the world. Also, if he IS responsible for that, then he can't truly be benevolent. If he IS truly benevolent, then he can't be omniscient.
If he is truly benevolent, and not omniscient, then he isn't perfect, because his creations don't turn out the way he'd prefer them to turn out.
If he lacks the ability to make things turn out the way he wants them to, he cannot be omnipotent...
In conclusion, god, as described in the bible, CANNOT exist.
To say otherwise is similar to saying, "5 + 5 = 11."
2006-12-19 13:04:40 · answer #3 · answered by RED MIST! 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Your analogy makes no sense. And why couldn't this have all happened by chance, and it is still going on. Read Cosmos by Carl Sagan for starters. Evolution is not theory, it is fact, hon, undeniable fact.,,, proovable to the last little segment of DNA.... Sorry. No, I'm not insulted, but supernaturalism is just beyond experience. However if all of that makes your day nicer, and your life better, believe the moon is made of green cheese if you wish.....
2006-12-19 13:19:57 · answer #4 · answered by April 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
An excellent point! And I have even more reason to answer and be accepted in my answer. I was adopted. Of course I know that I had a Dad, or I wouldn't be here and I know that there IS a God, or I wouldn't be here. There have been many, many circumstances that brought me to my family, and it was not at all the typical way (someone seeking to adopt) and it was not by accident. I know, without a doubt that I was meant to be with my parents who raised me all along, but my luggage somehow missed that first plane. I was lost, but now am found. I have wonderful parents and a Caring God who helped guide me to my parents. I thank Him and them every day!
God Bless and....
Merry Christmas!
2006-12-19 13:13:28 · answer #5 · answered by Lily P 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Where the analogy breaks down is the fact that everyone else around the person has a *visibly present* dad.
Atheism (these days) is more like being the only kid in your grade who doesn't believe in Santa Claus because you've seen your parents putting out the toys.
2006-12-19 12:58:16 · answer #6 · answered by John's Secret Identity™ 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Wow! under no circumstances concept approximately it like that in the past. i actually became under no circumstances stated with a faith. while i became little i in my opinion did not get faith in any respect. Now i'm older i see it as a stable component, whilst i don't think in not something, i don't think in one particular component. For me in my opinion, being a non-non secular person ability that i've got not got stupid prejudices that a number of my pals have. to illustrate 2 of my suitable pals starting to be up have been Jehovah's witnesses. I hadn't have been given a clue that this became any different to being Protestant or Catholic - it became each and all the comparable to me. i've got in basic terms met one actual atheist in the past and that they have been stated christian. So in keeping with danger former 'believers' are extra against perception.
2016-12-30 16:24:43 · answer #7 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, it's not an honest question, it's an insult.
You'd have to be an utter MORON to think you did'nt have parents. Biology is very simple.
On the other hand, thinking that you have some kind of magic sky-pixie looking out for you is not only mythology, but utterly stupid as well.
Grow up ok?
2006-12-19 13:05:51 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
It is an insult actually, you are assuming our belief is wrong.
In any case, evolution is not random chance. Whether or not a certain feature occurs in an individual plant or animal is based partly on random chance, but whether or not that feature is successful and is spread to the whole population is not.
I assume that's where you were going with the whole chance thing. If you were being slightly less ignorant, please correct me.
2006-12-19 13:05:15 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Furthering your (inapt and inept) analogy, a believer will cry "Daddy" at the first sight of any man, and do whatever that man tells him without any proof whatsoever that this person is in fact his father.
.
2006-12-19 13:06:24 · answer #10 · answered by Chickyn in a Handbasket 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Science and human reproduction fairly well proves that men or women have fathers. This is irrefutable.
Science still hasn't proven that there is a God.
Therefore atheism is not at all akin to your analogy.
2006-12-19 13:00:54 · answer #11 · answered by salty 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋