To all Atheists, what are your?--?

Question

What are your reasons why you believe there is no God? Also I personally believe the statement 'there is no God' cannot be true because in order for us to be able to say that and it be true means we would have to have utter and complete knowledge of the entire universe etc., and if you are honest nobody has that knowledge completely so it is possible God could exist where we have not discovered yet much like when scientist did not believe in germs etc. until an instrument was made where we could see germs etc., maybe we just haven't found a way yet to 'see God' so to speak. What are your thoughts on this?

Answer 1

Complete lack of evidence.


Nobody can prove any gods, much less a specific god, exist; many people will tell you their god exists but no others, but will never be able to prove it, even if they think so. Some will threaten you with eternal pain or promise eternal joy to get you to believe in their god; these are all stories, created for people who were scared long before we understood the universe. Now we have no more reason for these superstitions.

How terrible the bible in particular is:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/
http://www.evilbible.com/

What's the origin of the Jesus stories?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/origen048.html
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/jesus.html

How silly and horrible religion in general is:
http://godisimaginary.com/
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

The alternative:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/
http://www.infidels.org/
http://www.positiveatheism.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

We just haven't found a way yet to see unicorns, pixies, goblins, or dragons either.

Answer 2

well, you should differentiate between a statement being true and actually knowing that it is true. I cannot say for sure that God does not exist, and yet I say he doesn't. Indeed we may discover him someday. Unless he is indiscoverable. But in that case he will always be "a hypothesis I don't need". Things which are not interfering with the world we live in at all, which do not create a discernable pattern in our experiences, don't matter. I suppose if you have to be extremely precise I would be an agnostic atheist with the possibility of apatheism: I don't believe god exists even though I have no proof of that, and if he exists but does not in any way interfere with the observable universe I don't care if he exists. But atheist is so much shorter ;-)

edit: yes, and Russell's teapot, but that's well known right?

Answer 3

In the same respect we would have to have utter and complete knowledge of the entire univers etc in order to give the statement that "there is a god"

as for reasons...
well, I'd rather say I don't believe because it hasn't been sufficiently proven to me by my standards than to say I do believe because someone said I should. Because I said so just doesn't really do it for me on an issue like this.

Answer 4

Are you asking or telling?

Look, this question goes round and round. Supposing I were to tell you I could conceive of a much higher intelligence than man. Something that functions on a galactic level... say a being for whom the stars are the cells of its mind. OK, I could buy that such a thing is possible, and appealing to me. What I cannot conceive is some greater being, who happens to be a man, both in species and sex. If there were a god, I would have to take the quabbalistic line of thinking: it's nature would be unknowable to me. Unknowable in every way.

The image of a man with a long white beard makes no sense, but so many religious chirstians insist God MUST be a man.
And then that there would be no female counterpart begs the question: what is the point of God being male when there is NO female. That's an enormous piece of sexual apparatus that serves no function.

It is this kind of illogic that creates agnostics and atheists.

I have an open mind, but I will not fall for silly superstition. I reserve the possibility of greater beings than merely physical ones; but when I am told that someone on my level of existence knows exactly the nature of that being, that that being wrote a book, but leaves no other visible clues for its existence execpt for occasionally talking through burning bushes, then I know it is balogna I am listening to.

It's not the possibility of a godlike being I doubt. It's the American Christian version of it which makes absolutely no sense to me.

Answer 5

I think the whole thing is a bit silly, to tell you the truth. The holy trinity, virgin birth, virgin birth being a really big deal, the concept of 'original sin' and God giving up his son (or is it himself?) to allow himself (yes, himself) to do away with original sin, only then Jesus defeats death and rises to heaven which means there wasn't any sacrifice, just an ordeal. Oh yeah, you have to believe in God & Jesus, otherwise you don't go to heaven, regardless of how nice you've been.

This might make sense to other people, but I need a pretty good argument (and some damn good evidence) to even postulate that this can all be true.

Answer 6

There is no empirical proof for the existence of deities - nature and the like is not iron-clad proof it is merely assignation by a human being as proof. So, without empirical proof it does not exist.

No one knows everything nor do they have the life span to gain that much knowledge. One day there may be empirical proof that a deity exists and if it is so than I will acknowledge its existence; but, that doesn't mean I'll worship.

However, are you willing to acknowledge that if that proof comes about that it may not be what your conception of your deity is? There is nothing saying that any proved deity will be from any current religious system - it could be something entirely different.

Answer 7

God is supposed to be an omnipotent, omnipresent being, so if such a being exists people should not require utter and complete knowledge of the universe in order to be aware of him. Indeed, if he exists he should be quite obvious to anyone who has a look.

(It's possible that some people will use this argument against me in the future, saying that they did have a look and they have met him, but what can I say? The fact that the human mind plays tricks on its owner is well documented.)

Answer 8

You bring up a good point. Science used to be wrong, very wrong. I remember when "Time" magazine said cocaine is in no way addictive to the human body. The great thing about science it can constantly updated. The only thing someone has to do is say "wait a minute that is wrong we have just found new evidence to prove you wrong" And thats all. It's simple really. Shouldn't that be the way our culture should look at things? And even if the Bible is 100% right, it was written 1,000 years ago (please correct me on the number) how can a book that old possibly still be correct.

Answer 9

Would it not also be true that to say "There is a god," one would have to have utter and complete knowledge of the entire universe?

Since no one possesses such knowledge, we must operate on the evidence available.

In the examination of this evidence, is it a good idea to introduce an entity which cannot be perceived, or known as an explanation? Or is it more logical to examine only that which is perceptible?

Answer 10

Holy cow, I think you just wrote the longest sentence ever!



So, are you saying that because of lack of knowledge, the entire world should claim agnosticism? Or are your beliefs exempt from having to know everything there is to know?

I don't believe there is a God. I'm not saying that it's technically impossible, just very, very, very unlikely.