3#Atheists: WHY SHOULD THE EVOLUTION...??

Question

hey dears,

WHAT IS THIS...?
you are making this more complex and confusing..!

okay then if you said that the evolution doesn't disprove the existence of god<<
and that you don't worship god and don't believe in the religions because like most of you answered
that they don't believe in God because there's no evidence for God, and the 'proofs' of God that are proposed are weak.

and some of you said that The concept of "a god" is logically impossible. It's not even universally defined
THEN how could you say that and you're not even sure about it....??
WHAT are you going to lose if you believed in him ...??

peace all
anno

ps:im a muslim so don't waste your time and compare my questions with the bibble believes ..

Answer 1

Believe in WHAT?

You haven't even defined the god that YOU believe in.

First, you have to define the term "God." The problem with most theists is that this term is a moving target.

In addition, because there is no evidence either for or against the existence of God, you cannot use deductive logic (a+b=c; therefore c-b=a). You can only reach a conclusion by inductive reasoning using the balance of evidence (90% of A is also B; C is B, so the chances are 90% that C is also A).

So to begin with, I will assert (and others may shoot this down) that the only RELEVANT definition of God states that he intervenes to circumvent natural laws.

If God circumvents natural laws, then it is impossible to understand natural laws. All scientific findings would have to include the stipulation, "it is also possible that these results are an act of God, a miracle, thereby making our research meaningless."

However, since we have been able to expand our knowledge of natural laws (evidenced by every appliance in your kitchen), the scientific method works in this discovery. And the likely conclusion is that God, at least the intervening kind, does not exist.

Additionally, if God is defined as all loving, all powerful, and all knowing, then it is impossible to explain suffering. Either God is not all loving (he acts sadistically), not all powerful (he cannot prevent suffering), or not all knowing (he created suffering by mistake because he didn't know the consequences of his actions).

If God is less than these and/or does not intervene in our existence, then he is either non-existent or irrelevant. The classic Bertrand Russell argument is that I cannot prove that a china teapot is orbiting the sun between the earth's orbit and Mars. But while I cannot prove this is not true, the evidence against it is compelling.

The evidence against God is equally compelling, and while it is not possible to prove beyond any doubt, it makes enormously more sense to live your life as if there were no God.

It is more compelling to me that humans have invented God (a) to help people deal with the pain and fear associated with death and loss, and (b) to reflect the thoughts of the ruling powers in a particular time. Because humans are always looking for reasons, when none were found, it was the natural inclination to declare the cause to be "God" (or gods). As the faith grew, miracles (coincidences) and laws were ascribed to this Divinity, and an orthodoxy grew up around it.

Now it seems unhelpful to believe in such superstition. The only matters that aid in our ongoing well-being are work, location, health, sustenance, and pure, blind luck.

^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^

Answer 2

You may not be a Christian, but you are committing the same "Pascal's Wager" logical fallacies they commit here several times an hour in assuming belief in a god, any god, is for some reason the desirable default position in the absence of testable evidence.

You're a Moslem, probably for no more reason than where you were born, like most religionists. The requirements of your religion are really quite bothersome to my mind. Being an atheist, I don't have to pray five times a day, fast during Ramadan, go on Hajj, screw up my Friday nights, practice charity (even though I do far beyond your religion's requirements), study the Koran or any of that stuff (although I actually do read it occasionally since acquiring a respect for the practical wisdom of the Sufi masters, which most Moslems seem to despise as much as infidels).

In the absence of testable evidence for your god, the rational default position is atheism as a simple matter of efficient use of my limited life, and theism is an irrational default. So your fall-back position as a theist is to up the ante and try to frame theism as a kind of insincere "fire insurance" by asserting the threat of an angry, thin-skinned, torturing, megalomaniac deity, for which there is again no testable evidence, and again the default response of a rational mind to mere assertion absent testable evidence, a mind free from cultural conditioning that inoculates it against seeing the silliness of the theistic propositions, is disbelief of the mere assertion of an angry and vengeful god.

Answer 3

If you use a source book for your religious practice, whatever it is, you're relying on a compilation by humans. Some accept their religious doctrines as closed sets, not open to modification or enhancement. Some evolutionists fall into the same category, as if there were nothing more to learn.
If you want to apply the scientific method to evolution, you should also apply it to religion. In searching for a missing link, it is equally valid to ask for tangible proof of the existence of Abraham, if one wants to prove the basis for the initial communication of a huge subset of the world's religions. Can you do it?

Answer 4

*drink*

"okay then if you said that the evolution doesn't disprove the existence of god"
It doesn't prove it, either. Science does not deal with the supernatural.

"that they don't believe in God because there's no evidence for God, and the 'proofs' of God that are proposed are weak."
Right. You see our point, then. So........ what's the problem?

"WHAT are you going to lose if you believed in him ...??"
Logic and rationality.

Answer 5

What would I lose if I believed in him? How about my integrity! I honestly cannot believe in the concept of god without first drilling a hole in the side of my head and scooping out my brain.

Answer 6

I'm 100% sure that a god is logically impossible, so it would be simply absurd to believe in one. I couldn't believe a god really exists any more than I could believe that Santa really exists.

Answer 7

I don't see how anything in nature can prove the existence of a singular deity. Everything is at least dual in nature. Often times, there are multiples involved. Even govt's don't work when there is only one ruler.

Answer 8

What are you going to lose if you believe in Zeus?
If Pascal's Wager is all you have, wouldn't it make more sense to be a polytheist? That way you could cover more bases.

Answer 9

I'm a bit more than a 3# Atheist but regardless

*drink*

Just curious, do you believe in Zeus, I mean, what have you got to lose?

and if you don't, why not?

Now, just replace "Zeus" with your god's name and you know my reasoning.

Is that hard to understand?

Answer 10

"Proofs" aren't weak, they're non-existent.
"Not even sure?" I'm as sure as any theist... I *know*.
"Lose?" My self-respect. One should always stand up for their beliefs, no?
And how would it be possible to "believe in him", when we simply don't? That's like me asking you to believe in faeries or Santa - a truly impossible endeavour, no?
Hell... I'll have one too. * Drink *